On Tue, Jan 08, 2013 at 11:03:41AM +0100, Neels Hofmeyr wrote:
> I've just used 'svn patch'. There were missing target files, but I only
> noticed a lot later; because all the text conflicts had .svnpatch.rej
> files, but the missing targets were only listed in 'svn patch' output.
> So in my particular case it would have helped to have .svnpatch.rej
> files for missing targets. I would have noticed the lack of a target
> and I could have immediately looked at the diff chunks without
> having to browse through the original patch file. Does that
> generally make sense? It would sometimes need to create parent folders
> to place a rej file...
Yes, it should probably do that.
However, simple user errors such as using the wrong --strip argument
can create a *lot* of skips. So I'd prefer a single 'svnpatch.skipped.rej'
within the target dir, rather than littering the working copy with
a lot of 'svnpatch.rej' files.
Note that UNIX patch creates a single Oops.rej files for files which
Assume for a second that 'svn patch' already had the ability to flag
conflicts in the working copy (this is a planned feature). Should we
then still create an unversioned skip file or do something else?
Received on 2013-01-08 12:40:56 CET