Re: [PATCH] Implement svnadmin verify --force

--
Subversion Live 2012 - 2 Days: training, networking, demos & more! http://bit.ly/NgUaRi
Certified & Supported Apache Subversion Downloads: http://www.wandisco.com/subversion/download
----- Original Message -----
> From: C. Michael Pilato <cmpilato_at_collab.net>
> To: Julian Foad <julianfoad_at_btopenworld.com>
> Cc: Stefan Sperling <stsp_at_elego.de>; Prabhu Gnana Sundar <prabhugs_at_collab.net>; Daniel Shahaf <d.s_at_daniel.shahaf.name>; "dev_at_subversion.apache.org" <dev_at_subversion.apache.org>
> Sent: Thursday, 1 November 2012, 10:29
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] Implement svnadmin verify --force
> 
> On 11/01/2012 10:17 AM, Julian Foad wrote:
>>  That's easily readable, but I don't like it: it's a funny 
> mixture of styles.  We should choose either "notification" style (that 
> is, messages that are not error messages), such as
>> 
>>  * Verified revision 0.
>>  * Verified revision 1.
>>  * Verified revision 2.
>>  * Error verifying revision 3: Missing node-id in node-rev at r3 (offset 
> 787)
>>  * Error verifying revision 4: zlib (uncompress): corrupt data: 
> Decompression of svndiff data failed
>>  * Verified revision 5.
>> 
>>  or "error messages" style, in which case the messages should be 
> formatted like all svn err msgs, for example:
>> 
>>  * Verified revision 0.
>>  * Verified revision 1.
>>  * Verified revision 2.
>>  svnadmin: E199999: Error verifying revision 3
>>  svnadmin: E160004: Missing node-id in node-rev at r3 (offset 787)
>>  svnadmin: E199999: Error verifying revision 4
>>  svnadmin: E140001: zlib (uncompress): corrupt data: Decompression of 
> svndiff data failed
>>  * Verified revision 5.
> 
> Agreed.  And for what it's worth, I like the second form, especially if the
> errorful lines go to stderr.
Hmm, it's also reasonable to consider a combination of both: print a notification for every revision ("Verified rX" or "FAILED to verify rX" on stdout, AND an error message on stderr for each error.
- Julian