You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@subversion.apache.org by Rob Hubbard <ro...@softel.co.uk> on 2008/10/17 08:53:24 UTC
update --dry-run (again) [Was: Know before downloading trunk how many files I'm going to download.]
> > You can also try the --dry-run flag:
> >
> > $ svn --dry-run update
> >
>
> % svn up --dry-run
> Subcommand 'update' doesn't accept option '--dry-run'
> Type 'svn help update' for usage.
>
That's been suggested, requested, hinted at, or discussed before.
See e.g. the following SVN User threads...
Re: svn status proposal
<http://svn.haxx.se/dev/archive-2001-09/0409.shtml>
--dry-run
<http://svn.haxx.se/users/archive-2004-04/0624.shtml>
option equivalent to cvs's -n
<http://svn.haxx.se/users/archive-2004-05/0020.shtml>
How to do a "dry run" of svn update
<http://svn.haxx.se/users/archive-2004-05/1177.shtml>
svn update --dry-run?
<http://svn.haxx.se/users/archive-2004-12/0110.shtml>
--dry-run switch for svn update
<http://svn.haxx.se/users/archive-2005-02/1000.shtml>
Missing --dry-run?
<http://svn.haxx.se/users/archive-2006-02/0373.shtml>
request for "pretend" option
<http://svn.haxx.se/users/archive-2006-03/1240.shtml>
Feature suggestion: --dry-run on update
<http://svn.haxx.se/users/archive-2006-10/0465.shtml>
(that was me!)
how to find what would be updated: status --show-updates not
enough
<http://svn.haxx.se/users/archive-2006-10/0615.shtml>
update working copy to old revision --dry-run
<http://svn.haxx.se/users/archive-2006-10/1511.shtml>
Import of hidden files/dirs - no 'dry-run' ?
<http://svn.haxx.se/users/archive-2007-04/0889.shtml>
switch bug?
<http://svn.haxx.se/users/archive-2007-08/0186.shtml>
update without updating?
<http://svn.haxx.se/users/archive-2007-09/0831.shtml>
This seems to indicate the frequency of the surprise that
$ svn update --dry-run
is not available.
One reason for expect that this should be available is that an
update is somewhat like a merge.
Perhaps the only argument against is that an update is normally
mandatory, whereas a branch merge is an option. However, a dry-run
option on update might help plan *when* to update, if now whether to.
On an update, a --dry-run, might give you prior warning
of clashes with pre-existing files.
I still (2 years later) think --dry-run should be more-widely
available on svn commands.
Thanks,
Rob.
Rob Hubbard.
_______________________________________________
This email has been scanned for Softel by Star.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: Know before downloading trunk how many files I'm going to download.
Posted by Luca Bonora <bo...@gmail.com>.
I tried what you said but it doesn't work. It really seems there's not a
simple and fast way to know at first time how many files I'm going to
download with checkout.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
RE: update --dry-run (again) [Was: Know before downloading trunk how many files I'm going to download.]
Posted by Rob Hubbard <ro...@softel.co.uk>.
> I realize it's a workaround, not a solution, but doesn't
>
> "svn merge -r BASE:HEAD --dry-run . ."
>
> do approximately what you would want 'svn up --dry-run' to do?
>
> Daniel
Yes, excellent.
This is probably exactly what "svn update --dry-run [.]" should mean.
Similarly for "svn switch --dry-run ..." as mentioned elsewhere on this
mailing list. Again that can be emulated by a dry-run merge.
Er, and another thing... :-)
$ svn st -u
does not help when wishing to explore the possibility of
updating/"downdating" to a revision other than the HEAD.
In that case,
$ svn update -r[N] --dry-run [.]
should probably mean
$ svn merge -r BASE:[N] --dry-run . .
Thanks,
Rob.
>
>
> Rob Hubbard wrote on Fri, 17 Oct 2008 at 14:57 +0100:
> >
> >
> > > I may be missing something obvious, but what would svn update
> > > --dry-run provide which svn status -u would not? svn st -u shows
> > > what's changed locally and what's changed in the
> repository, so one
> > > could see where conflicts might arise upon
> > > updating, no?
> > >
> >
> >
> > Well, as you said, and as I commented in
> > <http://svn.haxx.se/users/archive-2006-10/0465.shtml>,
> > $ svn st -u
> > shows where conflicts *might* occur.
> >
> > On the other hand,
> > $ svn up --dry-run
> > would show where they *will* occur.
> >
> > Given that SVN already provides --dry-run for merge, I'm surprised
> > that there is so much resistance to introducing this option for the
> > update command.
> >
> > My impression is also that other users would find this
> option useful
> > for other reasons.
> >
> > I'd *also* quite like to see the remote changes without my local
> > changes, that is, show what files will be updated to my
> working copy
> > irrespective of my local changes. That's a slightly separate issue.
> >
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Rob.
_______________________________________________
This email has been scanned for Softel by Star.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
RE: update --dry-run (again) [Was: Know before downloading trunk
how many files I'm going to download.]
Posted by Daniel Shahaf <d....@daniel.shahaf.name>.
I realize it's a workaround, not a solution, but doesn't
"svn merge -r BASE:HEAD --dry-run . ."
do approximately what you would want 'svn up --dry-run' to do?
Daniel
Rob Hubbard wrote on Fri, 17 Oct 2008 at 14:57 +0100:
>
>
> > I may be missing something obvious, but what would svn update
> > --dry-run provide which svn status -u would not? svn st -u
> > shows what's changed locally and what's changed in the
> > repository, so one could see where conflicts might arise upon
> ^^^^^
> > updating, no?
> >
>
>
> Well, as you said, and as I commented in
> <http://svn.haxx.se/users/archive-2006-10/0465.shtml>,
> $ svn st -u
> shows where conflicts *might* occur.
>
> On the other hand,
> $ svn up --dry-run
> would show where they *will* occur.
>
> Given that SVN already provides --dry-run for merge,
> I'm surprised that there is so much resistance to introducing this
> option for the update command.
>
> My impression is also that other users would find this option useful
> for other reasons.
>
> I'd *also* quite like to see the remote changes without my local
> changes,
> that is, show what files will be updated to my working copy
> irrespective of my local changes. That's a slightly separate issue.
>
>
> Thanks,
> Rob.
>
> _______________________________________________
> This email has been scanned for Softel by Star.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
RE: update --dry-run (again) [Was: Know before downloading trunk how many files I'm going to download.]
Posted by Rob Hubbard <ro...@softel.co.uk>.
> I may be missing something obvious, but what would svn update
> --dry-run provide which svn status -u would not? svn st -u
> shows what's changed locally and what's changed in the
> repository, so one could see where conflicts might arise upon
^^^^^
> updating, no?
>
Well, as you said, and as I commented in
<http://svn.haxx.se/users/archive-2006-10/0465.shtml>,
$ svn st -u
shows where conflicts *might* occur.
On the other hand,
$ svn up --dry-run
would show where they *will* occur.
Given that SVN already provides --dry-run for merge,
I'm surprised that there is so much resistance to introducing this
option for the update command.
My impression is also that other users would find this option useful
for other reasons.
I'd *also* quite like to see the remote changes without my local
changes,
that is, show what files will be updated to my working copy
irrespective of my local changes. That's a slightly separate issue.
Thanks,
Rob.
_______________________________________________
This email has been scanned for Softel by Star.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: update --dry-run (again) [Was: Know before downloading trunk how many files I'm going to download.]
Posted by Andy Levy <an...@gmail.com>.
On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 04:53, Rob Hubbard <ro...@softel.co.uk> wrote:
>> > You can also try the --dry-run flag:
>> >
>> > $ svn --dry-run update
>> >
>>
>> % svn up --dry-run
>> Subcommand 'update' doesn't accept option '--dry-run'
>> Type 'svn help update' for usage.
>>
>
> That's been suggested, requested, hinted at, or discussed before.
> See e.g. the following SVN User threads...
>
> Re: svn status proposal
> <http://svn.haxx.se/dev/archive-2001-09/0409.shtml>
>
> --dry-run
> <http://svn.haxx.se/users/archive-2004-04/0624.shtml>
>
> option equivalent to cvs's -n
> <http://svn.haxx.se/users/archive-2004-05/0020.shtml>
>
> How to do a "dry run" of svn update
> <http://svn.haxx.se/users/archive-2004-05/1177.shtml>
>
> svn update --dry-run?
> <http://svn.haxx.se/users/archive-2004-12/0110.shtml>
>
> --dry-run switch for svn update
> <http://svn.haxx.se/users/archive-2005-02/1000.shtml>
>
> Missing --dry-run?
> <http://svn.haxx.se/users/archive-2006-02/0373.shtml>
>
> request for "pretend" option
> <http://svn.haxx.se/users/archive-2006-03/1240.shtml>
>
> Feature suggestion: --dry-run on update
> <http://svn.haxx.se/users/archive-2006-10/0465.shtml>
> (that was me!)
>
> how to find what would be updated: status --show-updates not
> enough
> <http://svn.haxx.se/users/archive-2006-10/0615.shtml>
>
> update working copy to old revision --dry-run
> <http://svn.haxx.se/users/archive-2006-10/1511.shtml>
>
> Import of hidden files/dirs - no 'dry-run' ?
> <http://svn.haxx.se/users/archive-2007-04/0889.shtml>
>
> switch bug?
> <http://svn.haxx.se/users/archive-2007-08/0186.shtml>
>
> update without updating?
> <http://svn.haxx.se/users/archive-2007-09/0831.shtml>
>
> This seems to indicate the frequency of the surprise that
> $ svn update --dry-run
> is not available.
>
> One reason for expect that this should be available is that an
> update is somewhat like a merge.
>
> Perhaps the only argument against is that an update is normally
> mandatory, whereas a branch merge is an option. However, a dry-run
> option on update might help plan *when* to update, if now whether to.
>
> On an update, a --dry-run, might give you prior warning
> of clashes with pre-existing files.
>
>
> I still (2 years later) think --dry-run should be more-widely
> available on svn commands.
I may be missing something obvious, but what would svn update
--dry-run provide which svn status -u would not? svn st -u shows
what's changed locally and what's changed in the repository, so one
could see where conflicts might arise upon updating, no?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org