Not reporting the change via the editor drive will break reporting that
intermediate change as a tree conflict for local shadowed nodes (E.g.
replacements)
Bert Huijben (Cell phone)
From: Daniel Shahaf
Sent: 13-10-2012 19:16
To: Alan Barrett; dev_at_subversion.apache.org
Subject: Re: Update that pulls a null delta
Stefan Sperling wrote on Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 17:54:07 +0200:
> On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 05:02:56PM +0200, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> > Alan Barrett wrote on Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 15:16:00 +0200:
> > > On Fri, 12 Oct 2012, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> > >> If an update pulls in a null delta --- eg, because it updates across two
> > >> revisions that revert each other --- then it should behave as though it
> > >> pulled nothing at all: output no 'U filename' lines, and print "At
> > >> revision %ld".
> > >>
> > >> Right?
> > >
> > > As a user, I want to see the 'U filename' report.
> > >
> >
> > Perhaps ' filename' would be more accurate? That way the output is
> > still clear that "Nothing happened".
>
> In my opinion a null delta is an edge-case not worth special-casing.
> I understand academic interest in the question. But I wouldn't see
> much point in changing the UI for this.
It's not academic, I started this thread because I actually ran into
this case and the output confused me.
Received on 2012-10-13 19:50:07 CEST