[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: [PATCH] Add --dry-run flag to "svn update" client command

From: Travis <svn_at_castle.fastmail.fm>
Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2011 08:17:34 -0600

On Mar 2, 2011, at 7:50 AM, Mark Phippard wrote:

> On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 8:42 AM, Hyrum K Wright <hyrum_at_hyrumwright.org> wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 4:14 AM, Bert Huijben <bert_at_qqmail.nl> wrote:
>> Agreed. I'm not a fan of duplicating this functionality (and
>> maintaining them in parallel when they inevitably drift) as part of
>> 'svn up'. Let's improve what we already have, rather than inventing
>> 'svn st -U'
> I think Arwin has some good points. Unless we let update do its thing
> and discard the updates we cannot know if there are going to be
> conflicts. I do not think svn st -U would ever grow a feature like
> that would it?
> I also do not see why clients could not use this. Presumably it sends
> notifications just like merge --dry-run.

Indeed, I have these tips for users because (1) "update" does not have a --dry-run that will show conflicts, and (2) "status -U" also does not show that information.

Knowing ahead-of-time if an update will produce conflicts is useful information.

Run the merge command like this (recursive by default) to see what files would get modified and how, including which would have conflicts:

svn merge -r BASE:HEAD --dry-run .

To see the changes that update would try to merge, run this command:

svn diff -r BASE:HEAD [list of files and directories]

Received on 2011-03-02 15:18:10 CET

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.

This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.