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

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:
<snip>
>>
>> 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]
====

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