You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@subversion.apache.org by Philip Martin <ph...@wandisco.com> on 2013/04/17 12:54:07 UTC
Update targets that don't exist
We allow the user to update a target that is not present in the working
copy: it lets the user bring in a target that is present in a different
revision. We also allow the update of an existing target to a revision
in which the target does not exist: the target gets marked as
'not-present'. Both of those behaviours are useful but what about a
target that does not exist in the working copy and does not exist in the
target revision? The update doesn't change the working copy but it
doesn't give an indication that the target doesn't exist either.
With 1.6 and 1.8 I get:
$ svn up wc/some-file-that-does-not-exist
At revision 3
With 1.7 I get:
$ svn up wc/some-file-that-does-not-exist
Updating 'wc/some-file-that-does-not-exist':
At revision 3
Is it valid for these update to be successful? Should we be returning
an error if the update target doesn't exist in the intial working copy
and doesn't get added by the update?
--
Certified & Supported Apache Subversion Downloads:
http://www.wandisco.com/subversion/download
Re: Update targets that don't exist
Posted by Philip Martin <ph...@wandisco.com>.
"Bert Huijben" <be...@qqmail.nl> writes:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: MARTIN PHILIP [mailto:codematters@ntlworld.com] On Behalf Of
>> Philip Martin
>> Sent: woensdag 17 april 2013 12:54
>> To: dev@subversion.apache.org
>> Subject: Update targets that don't exist
>>
>> We allow the user to update a target that is not present in the working
>> copy: it lets the user bring in a target that is present in a different
>> revision. We also allow the update of an existing target to a revision
>> in which the target does not exist: the target gets marked as
>> 'not-present'. Both of those behaviours are useful but what about a
>> target that does not exist in the working copy and does not exist in the
>> target revision? The update doesn't change the working copy but it
>> doesn't give an indication that the target doesn't exist either.
>>
>> With 1.6 and 1.8 I get:
>>
>> $ svn up wc/some-file-that-does-not-exist
>> At revision 3
>>
>> With 1.7 I get:
>>
>> $ svn up wc/some-file-that-does-not-exist
>> Updating 'wc/some-file-that-does-not-exist':
>> At revision 3
>>
>> Is it valid for these update to be successful? Should we be returning
>> an error if the update target doesn't exist in the intial working copy
>> and doesn't get added by the update?
>
> I'm not sure if we should make it an error, but a warning (=notification)
> would be friendly.
> (The 'Updating' line is new in 1.7 for all updates)
I was mistaken about 1.8: it produces the same output as 1.7 and not the
1.6 output.
--
Certified & Supported Apache Subversion Downloads:
http://www.wandisco.com/subversion/download
Re: Update targets that don't exist
Posted by Philip Martin <ph...@wandisco.com>.
"C. Michael Pilato" <cm...@collab.net> writes:
> On 04/17/2013 07:34 AM, Bert Huijben wrote:
>>> With 1.6 and 1.8 I get:
>>>
>>> $ svn up wc/some-file-that-does-not-exist
>>> At revision 3
>>>
>>> With 1.7 I get:
>>>
>>> $ svn up wc/some-file-that-does-not-exist
>>> Updating 'wc/some-file-that-does-not-exist':
>>> At revision 3
>>>
>>> Is it valid for these update to be successful? Should we be returning
>>> an error if the update target doesn't exist in the intial working copy
>>> and doesn't get added by the update?
>>
>> I'm not sure if we should make it an error, but a warning (=notification)
>> would be friendly.
>
> +1. More than once I've mistakenly mis-issued an 'update' command and
> wished that Subversion had told me I'd made the mistake.
I'm not planning to implement it at present so I've raised:
http://subversion.tigris.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4353
--
Certified & Supported Apache Subversion Downloads:
http://www.wandisco.com/subversion/download
Re: Update targets that don't exist
Posted by "C. Michael Pilato" <cm...@collab.net>.
On 04/17/2013 07:34 AM, Bert Huijben wrote:
>> With 1.6 and 1.8 I get:
>>
>> $ svn up wc/some-file-that-does-not-exist
>> At revision 3
>>
>> With 1.7 I get:
>>
>> $ svn up wc/some-file-that-does-not-exist
>> Updating 'wc/some-file-that-does-not-exist':
>> At revision 3
>>
>> Is it valid for these update to be successful? Should we be returning
>> an error if the update target doesn't exist in the intial working copy
>> and doesn't get added by the update?
>
> I'm not sure if we should make it an error, but a warning (=notification)
> would be friendly.
+1. More than once I've mistakenly mis-issued an 'update' command and
wished that Subversion had told me I'd made the mistake.
--
C. Michael Pilato <cm...@collab.net>
CollabNet <> www.collab.net <> Enterprise Cloud Development
RE: Update targets that don't exist
Posted by Bert Huijben <be...@qqmail.nl>.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: MARTIN PHILIP [mailto:codematters@ntlworld.com] On Behalf Of
> Philip Martin
> Sent: woensdag 17 april 2013 12:54
> To: dev@subversion.apache.org
> Subject: Update targets that don't exist
>
> We allow the user to update a target that is not present in the working
> copy: it lets the user bring in a target that is present in a different
> revision. We also allow the update of an existing target to a revision
> in which the target does not exist: the target gets marked as
> 'not-present'. Both of those behaviours are useful but what about a
> target that does not exist in the working copy and does not exist in the
> target revision? The update doesn't change the working copy but it
> doesn't give an indication that the target doesn't exist either.
>
> With 1.6 and 1.8 I get:
>
> $ svn up wc/some-file-that-does-not-exist
> At revision 3
>
> With 1.7 I get:
>
> $ svn up wc/some-file-that-does-not-exist
> Updating 'wc/some-file-that-does-not-exist':
> At revision 3
>
> Is it valid for these update to be successful? Should we be returning
> an error if the update target doesn't exist in the intial working copy
> and doesn't get added by the update?
I'm not sure if we should make it an error, but a warning (=notification)
would be friendly.
(The 'Updating' line is new in 1.7 for all updates)
Bert