[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

RE: [PATCH] Implement svnadmin verify --force

From: Bert Huijben <bert_at_qqmail.nl>
Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2012 16:53:41 +0100

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Daniel Shahaf [mailto:d.s_at_daniel.shahaf.name]
> Sent: donderdag 1 november 2012 16:22
> To: C. Michael Pilato
> Cc: Julian Foad; Stefan Sperling; Prabhu Gnana Sundar;
> dev_at_subversion.apache.org
> Subject: 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.

In that case: why do we add --force?

Maybe we should default to this new behavior and *add* a quick exit on error
for whoever needs it.

I think the total report on which revisions are broken is more informational
than just the first error. And I don't like the '--force' for argument for
continuing.

        Bert
Received on 2012-11-01 16:54:30 CET

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.