Stefan Sperling wrote on Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 11:27:25 +0100:
> On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 12:19:02PM +0200, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> > Stefan Sperling wrote on Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 11:03:56 +0100:
> > > Why would you *not* want to do this? Don't say "because the bug isn't
> > > in svn" since that is clear. We're not fixing a bug in 'svn'. We're
> > > making it work properly by default in more environments.
> >
> > I didn't say you should not apply the patch --- I was just raising
> > a point you seemed to have glossed on. You see that point and still
> > think the patch is an improvement, so I don't have a reason you
> > shouldn't apply the patch...
>
> OK, thanks!
>
> > > Or can you name a serious problem with this behaviour change?
> > > I cannot think of one but perhaps I'm overlooking something.
> >
> > Well, since you ask, does it break
> > echo p | svn up
> > ?
>
> That will postpone all conflicts since with my patch it's the same as
> svn up --non-interactive
>
Actually I was thinking of the "(p)ermanently" of the SSL cert prompt.
That doesn't affect your answer, though --- people who needed to not
pass --non-interactive in 1.7 will need to pass --force-interactive in
1.8.
> And if it was interactive it would only answer one of possibly several
> conflict prompts in the first place. You probably meant the equivalent of
> yes p | svn up
>
> With the patch applied you can either use
> yes p | svn up --force-interactive
> or, as usual,
> svn up --accept p
> to postpone all conflicts. Or svn up --accept ':-P' of course.
Received on 2012-12-18 11:35:36 CET