RE: svn commit: r1617909 - in /subversion/trunk/subversion: include/svn_wc.h libsvn_wc/conflicts.c libsvn_wc/update_editor.c libsvn_wc/util.c svn/util.c
From: Bert Huijben <bert_at_qqmail.nl>
Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2014 13:13:42 +0200
> -----Original Message-----
In all these cases you still have a really interesing path, to where you tried to switch/update the original path to. If you don't store that you don't know what you tried to switch/update to.
Why don't you store *that path* and the revision?
Note: I don't care about the 'svn' output... Feel free to not show it there, if that might make more sense.
But if I look at the tree conflict information through an API, that path that you tried to switch to is 100% essential information, while a revision is useless information without a repository path. That the node is not there (kind=none) still says me that the node is not there.
"I switched that working copy to r123" doesn't tell me anything, while the information "I switched that working copy to '^/branches/major-QQQ-refactoring_at_r123' tells me everything.
I wish the average user, asking for support knew that...
Even if that path does not exist, I can still chop of one component and use that information with the parent directory's path to perhaps retry the switch at a different revision... Or use it to merge some missing information in.
And a smart tree conflict resolver might even use more tricks than that.... which would be impossible without a path.
This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.