On Wednesday 07 April 2004 2:47 am, Jason E. Stewart wrote:
> Ben Collins-Sussman <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> > The question is: is the inconsistency an annoying problem, or is
> > it an extra bit of user-friendliness? I can see somebody arguing
> > either way.
> > However, hundreds (thousands?) of people have been using Subversion
> > for 2 years or so now, and this is the first time I've ever heard
> > anyone complain about this inconsistency. So based on experience,
> > I'm *guessing* that the status quo is the better choice.
> Perhaps the real issue is that 'svn status' is not properly listing
> the two conflict files as being under svn control. cleanAll is using
> 'svn status to determine which files are under SVN control, and they
> are not listed, so most users would assume what Alexis assumed.
I have seen this problem too; I have a "svn_wc_purge" script that runs
'svn status --no-ignore' and clears out anything not under svn control.
The tmp files made from conflicts are reported as '?' type files by svn
status, so if I do a svn_wc_purge it makes conflicts magically looked
My workaround has been "don't do that", and I can do that easily enough,
but I agree that it really would be nice to have svn status report
those files differently (or just not at all).
Wesley J. Landaker <email@example.com>
OpenPGP FP: 4135 2A3B 4726 ACC5 9094 0097 F0A9 8A4C 4CD6 E3D2
Received on Fri Apr 9 21:38:19 2004
- application/pgp-signature attachment: signature