Re: [PATCH] Implement svnadmin verify --force

C. Michael Pilato wrote on Thu, Nov 01, 2012 at 10:56:59 -0400:
> On 11/01/2012 10:33 AM, Julian Foad wrote:
> >> 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.
>
> Yes, I think that's ideal, so long as in the error case both the message to
> stdout ("FAILED to verify rX") and the message(s) to stderr carry the
> revision number. In other words, both streams should be independently
> valuable to the reader.

+1 to having a non-zero exit code if there was any error throughout.
Received on 2012-11-01 16:22:54 CET