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

Re: can "svn info" be made more selective?

From: Robert P. J. Day <rpjday_at_crashcourse.ca>
Date: Sun, 1 Feb 2009 10:50:25 -0500 (EST)

On Sun, 1 Feb 2009, Mark Phippard wrote:

> On Sun, Feb 1, 2009 at 10:38 AM, Robert P. J. Day <rpjday_at_crashcourse.ca> wrote:
> > at the moment, i'm looking at the (gack) 1.4.3 version of svn so
> > it's quite possible that this exists in a later version, i just can't
> > tell.
> >
> > is it reasonable to suggest that "svn info" be extended to accept
> > options as to *precisely* which bit of info you want? as in, --url or
> > --root or --uuid or ... well, you get the idea.
> >
> > i ask since we have a build structure which frequently invokes "svn
> > info", then runs the output through grep and sed to extract some of
> > those fields. it strikes me that it would just be easier to support
> > those options, and i can't imagine i'm the first person who ever
> > wished they existed.
> >
> > am i totally out to lunch here? i mean, on *this* issue.
> You are basically saying you would like command-line options to
> indicate what data you want to get back from svn info. You are not
> out to lunch, but the request does against the grain of the SVN
> philosophy of keeping the output easy to parse and the command line
> options simple. SVN already provides a lot of reasonable options
> here:
> 1) The output of the command is easy to parse
> 2) The command supports XML output for alternative easy to parse options
> 3) Subversion provides libraries that are easy to use from a number of
> different programming languages and which provides direct access to
> whatever information you desire. Those libraries maintain a strict
> compatibility contract so that your code does not have to be modified
> every time there is a new Subversion release.

  fair enough, but just one observation -- i'm not sure what a "strict
compatibility contract" has to do with this, since such an extension
would clearly be backward-compatible, would it not? i wasn't
suggesting changing anything, just adding.

  in any event, i'm fine with this, i was just curious. thanks.


Robert P. J. Day
Linux Consulting, Training and Annoying Kernel Pedantry:
    Have classroom, will lecture.
http://crashcourse.ca                          Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA
To unsubscribe from this discussion, e-mail: [users-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org].
Received on 2009-02-01 16:52:02 CET

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

This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.