Re: [Issue 4154] New - svn add foo foo complains

Julian Foad wrote on Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 21:11:55 +0100:
> Daniel Shahaf wrote:
>
> > Would having an explicit
> >
> >     Skipped duplicated target 'foo'
> >
> > notification address your concern?
>
> It would mitigate the negative consequences.  At least the user would then know they'd made a mistake.  Still lacking any positive justification, so -0.25 :-)
>

The positive justification was that if we interpret 'svn add foo bar' as
'add foo and bar', we might want to define the semantics as a set --- in
which case erroring out on 'svn add foo foo' is wrong.

Anyway, I won't pursue it.

> - Julian
>
>
> > Julian Foad wrote on Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 15:47:34 +0100:
> >> In the issue, you give the example "$svn add f* *o", and then
> >> claim svn should eliminate duplicate args for you.  But why
> >> should it?
> [...]
> >> In short, -0.5.
Received on 2012-03-29 22:52:01 CEST