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

RE: A verbose option to "svn update"?

From: Bert Huijben <bert_at_qqmail.nl>
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2016 08:25:49 +0200

This may work for a system like CVS that does everything per file, but in case of Subversion this doesn’t really work. We check all files locally at the start of the update, then send a report to the server to what exactly we have locally… and then the server only sends a binary-tree-diff of what has changed between revisions.

So changing a really large file, could be a very tiny operation… or changing a small one a huge operation. The client would only know when the file is done (=the moment you see the notification now).

The verbose information you want is not available on either the client or the server… just on the combination. And redesigning the protocol to expose it would only slow things down.

What might help is looking at how much data is transferred, which some of our common GUI clients do. Exposing this on the console is hard. (We made some early prototypes some time ago, but non that we liked enough to release in ‘svn’)


Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: Doug Robinson
Sent: woensdag 27 april 2016 22:57
To: users_at_subversion.apache.org
Subject: A verbose option to "svn update"?


A suggestion from one of our customers:

I see that "svn update" does not have a -v (verbose) option either. That would be helpful, because verbose output of what svn update is doing file by file would help narrow in on what is going on much faster. Something like this:

> svn -v update
Updating '.':
checking file1 ...
checking bin/file2 ...
U bin/file2
fetching file3 ...
A file3
checking lib/file4 ...

If something like the above was available, then users would see what svn was update while getting updates. I could have, for example, quickly seen it was stuck "checking file galaxy_ms_wroute_pg.v ..." the file the ended up being the issue in this case.

In this case they found a problem with a large file by watching "ps" output.  But such a verbose option would enable much easier diagnostics.

Even better, on slow links this could definitely help delay the end-user SIGINT because they thought something was "hung".

Thoughts?  Is there already a better way?

Thank you.


T 925-396-1125
E doug.robinson_at_wandisco.com
Learn how WANdisco Fusion solves Hadoop data protection and scalability challenges
Listed on the London Stock Exchange: WAND
THIS MESSAGE AND ANY ATTACHMENTS ARE CONFIDENTIAL, PROPRIETARY, AND MAY BE PRIVILEGED.  If this message was misdirected, WANdisco, Inc. and its subsidiaries, ("WANdisco") does not waive any confidentiality or privilege.  If you are not the intended recipient, please notify us immediately and destroy the message without disclosing its contents to anyone.  Any distribution, use or copying of this e-mail or the information it contains by other than an intended recipient is unauthorized.  The views and opinions expressed in this e-mail message are the author's own and may not reflect the views and opinions of WANdisco, unless the author is authorized by WANdisco to express such views or opinions on its behalf.  All email sent to or from this address is subject to electronic storage and review by WANdisco.  Although WANdisco operates anti-virus programs, it does not accept responsibility for any damage whatsoever caused by viruses being passed.
Received on 2016-04-28 08:25:58 CEST

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.