Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> +1
Files as enhancement issue #4006,
<http://subversion.tigris.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4006>.
- Julian
> 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 14:17:05 CEST