+1
Julian Foad wrote on Mon, Sep 05, 2011 at 11:59:08 +0100:
> On Mon, 2011-09-05 at 13:42 +0300, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> > Julian Foad wrote on Mon, Sep 05, 2011 at 10:38:02 +0100:
> > > The final message from "svn switch" is exactly the same as for "svn
> > > update" -- either:
> > >
> > > $ svn sw file://.../repo/X wc
> > > A wc/foo
> > > Updated to revision 4.
> > >
> > > or:
> > >
> > > $ svn sw file://.../repo/X wc
> > > At revision 4.
> > >
> > > depending on whether there was a change of content. To the user who
> >
> > That's a useful difference, I'd be happy to preserve it --- e.g.,
> >
> > (At $URL,|Switched to $URL,|Already at $URL,|Updated to) revision N.
> >
> > (first two examples are for a new URL without/with content change; last
> > two examples are for a non-new URL without/with content change)
>
> I'd be happy to preserve the distinction, but not like that. I suggest
> a more orthogonal output:
>
> Switched to $URL.
> At revision 4.
>
> Switched to $URL.
> Updated to revision 4.
>
> Already at $URL.
> At revision 4.
>
> Already at $URL.
> Updated to revision 4.
>
> I don't know how important backward compatibility is, but that preserves
> a final backward-compatible line, as well as being clear and
> unambiguous. (If we think one-line output is more important than this
> kind of backward compatibility, simply concatenate the two messages on
> one line.)
>
> - Julian
>
>
Received on 2011-09-05 13:17:13 CEST