I vote for "a bug".
Harald Karner wrote on Tue, Feb 08, 2011 at 16:20:57 +0100:
> On 08.02.2011 15:34, Andy Levy wrote:
> >On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 07:53, Harald Karner<harald.karner_at_gmx.net> wrote:
> >>Hi!
> >>
> >>when I do a svn status -u I get the following result:
> >>
> >>
> >>$ svn status -u test.txt dir1/
> >>M * 210 test.txt
> >>Status against revision: 213
> >> * 212 dir1
> >>Status against revision: 213
> >>
> >>
> >>but when I add --depth empty I get this:
> >>
> >>$ svn status -u --depth empty test.txt dir1/
> >>Status against revision: 213
> >> * 212 dir1
> >>Status against revision: 213
> >>
> >>
> >>Is this a bug, that the modifications for test.txt are not displayed or is
> >>it intended behaviour?
> >
> >Seems like intended behavior to me. You've asked for the status of a
> >WC without consideration of its child items (--depth empty)
>
> I have asked for the status of test.txt and dir1/ without
> consideration of child items. Of course a --depth parameter does not
> make much sense for files, but I think the current behaviour is at
> least misleading. Especially because svn update behaves different:
>
> $ svn update --depth empty test.txt dir1/
> G test.txt
> Updated to revision 213.
> U dir1
> Updated to revision 213.
>
> So, if it is "wrong" to return the status for a file with --depth
> empty, why does "svn update" update the file with --depth empty
> given?
>
>
> >>If this is on purpose, what is the proper way to retrieve the status of a
> >>mixed list of files and directories?
> >
> >In what way does your first command not achieve this result?
>
> The first command would also return the status of the files and
> subdirectories of dir1/.
> I'm trying to get the status for exactly those (and only those)
> files and directories that I pass as to svn status as command line
> arguments, i.e. I don't want the status of subdirectories or files
> in folders.
Received on 2011-02-14 08:06:22 CET