You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@subversion.apache.org by Kevin Pilch-Bisson <ke...@pilch-bisson.net> on 2001/10/22 17:18:48 UTC
Status behaviour
Hey all,
Just playing around with svn st today, and I came across a couple of things.
1) With the new code you can't see prop-mods on a dir, without the possiblility
of also seeing all the entries in that dir as well. I can live with this,
just wanted to make sure everyone else can as well.
2) If you run svn status on a non-versioned item, you get an error. That
is what one would expect, except for the following use case. It would be
nice sometimes to run svn status -un *, so that you get a shallow glimpse of
the current directory and its children. The problem is that if * includes
non versioned items, you get an error.
3) If you do svn status -un *, the head revision is reported for each of
the entries in *.
I have made some small changes to clients/cmdline to modify the behaviour
of 2 and 3. Specifically, if multiple targets are passed, svn status prints
'? filename' when it receives ENOENT or SVN_ERR_BAD_FILENAME errors. 2nd,
the status command only prints the head revision on the last target in the
array.
What do people think of these changes?
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Kevin Pilch-Bisson http://www.pilch-bisson.net
"Historically speaking, the presences of wheels in Unix
has never precluded their reinvention." - Larry Wall
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Re: Status behaviour]
Posted by Kevin Pilch-Bisson <ke...@pilch-bisson.net>.
On Mon, Oct 22, 2001 at 02:02:50PM -0400, Kevin Pilch-Bisson wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 22, 2001 at 12:56:26PM -0500, Ben Collins-Sussman wrote:
> > I experience this use-case all the time, actually. I've gotten in the
> > habit of running 'svn status -uvn'. I guess this won't show
> > unversioned items. But then again, I never really want to see them
> > either. :-)
> >
> Right. It currently will only work on things that are in the entries file.
> The problem comes in when you specifically ask for the status of a file that
> is not versioned (most commonly in the wildcard case).
>
> We could have it print the ?, or print nothing. Currently it errors out though
> which I don't think we want.
>
After thinking some more, I'm starting to wobble here. I'm really not sure
which colour we want our bikeshed to be here, so I am going to leave this alone
unless people start asking for the behaviour to be different from what it is
now. It isn't really a lot of work to make the change, but I'm not sure
if it's worth it.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Kevin Pilch-Bisson http://www.pilch-bisson.net
"Historically speaking, the presences of wheels in Unix
has never precluded their reinvention." - Larry Wall
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Re: Status behaviour
Posted by Kevin Pilch-Bisson <ke...@pilch-bisson.net>.
On Mon, Oct 22, 2001 at 12:56:26PM -0500, Ben Collins-Sussman wrote:
> Kevin Pilch-Bisson <ke...@pilch-bisson.net> writes:
>
> > 2) If you run svn status on a non-versioned item, you get an error. That
> > is what one would expect, except for the following use case. It would be
> > nice sometimes to run svn status -un *, so that you get a shallow glimpse of
> > the current directory and its children. The problem is that if * includes
> > non versioned items, you get an error.
>
> I experience this use-case all the time, actually. I've gotten in the
> habit of running 'svn status -uvn'. I guess this won't show
> unversioned items. But then again, I never really want to see them
> either. :-)
>
Right. It currently will only work on things that are in the entries file.
The problem comes in when you specifically ask for the status of a file that
is not versioned (most commonly in the wildcard case).
We could have it print the ?, or print nothing. Currently it errors out though
which I don't think we want.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Kevin Pilch-Bisson http://www.pilch-bisson.net
"Historically speaking, the presences of wheels in Unix
has never precluded their reinvention." - Larry Wall
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Re: Status behaviour
Posted by Ben Collins-Sussman <su...@collab.net>.
Kevin Pilch-Bisson <ke...@pilch-bisson.net> writes:
> 2) If you run svn status on a non-versioned item, you get an error. That
> is what one would expect, except for the following use case. It would be
> nice sometimes to run svn status -un *, so that you get a shallow glimpse of
> the current directory and its children. The problem is that if * includes
> non versioned items, you get an error.
I experience this use-case all the time, actually. I've gotten in the
habit of running 'svn status -uvn'. I guess this won't show
unversioned items. But then again, I never really want to see them
either. :-)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: Status behaviour
Posted by Kevin Pilch-Bisson <ke...@pilch-bisson.net>.
On Mon, Oct 22, 2001 at 07:53:24PM +0200, Branko ?ibej wrote:
> Kevin Pilch-Bisson wrote:
>
> >
> >Well, if no one complained about the issue, I will check it in. One more
> >question. Should it print the ? even if there is only one target? I am
> >beginning to think yes.
> >
> I think so, too. Also if the target is (implicit) "." and the directory
> contains unversioned files.
>
> Of course, the svn:ignore property should do it's stuff, too. :-)
>
Ahh, good points, that is going to require a little bit more work, but I'm on
it.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Kevin Pilch-Bisson http://www.pilch-bisson.net
"Historically speaking, the presences of wheels in Unix
has never precluded their reinvention." - Larry Wall
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Re: Status behaviour
Posted by Branko Čibej <br...@xbc.nu>.
Kevin Pilch-Bisson wrote:
>On Mon, Oct 22, 2001 at 07:40:11PM +0200, Branko ?ibej wrote:
>
>>>What do people think of these changes?
>>>
>>+1. I submitted an issue about this (actually, two: 491 and 492), so
>>obviously I agree with you.
>>
>
>Well, if no one complained about the issue, I will check it in. One more
>question. Should it print the ? even if there is only one target? I am
>beginning to think yes.
>
I think so, too. Also if the target is (implicit) "." and the directory
contains unversioned files.
Of course, the svn:ignore property should do it's stuff, too. :-)
--
Brane �ibej <br...@xbc.nu> http://www.xbc.nu/brane/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: Status behaviour
Posted by Kevin Pilch-Bisson <ke...@pilch-bisson.net>.
On Mon, Oct 22, 2001 at 07:40:11PM +0200, Branko ?ibej wrote:
> >What do people think of these changes?
> >
> +1. I submitted an issue about this (actually, two: 491 and 492), so
> obviously I agree with you.
Well, if no one complained about the issue, I will check it in. One more
question. Should it print the ? even if there is only one target? I am
beginning to think yes.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Kevin Pilch-Bisson http://www.pilch-bisson.net
"Historically speaking, the presences of wheels in Unix
has never precluded their reinvention." - Larry Wall
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Re: Status behaviour
Posted by Branko Čibej <br...@xbc.nu>.
Kevin Pilch-Bisson wrote:
>Hey all,
>
>Just playing around with svn st today, and I came across a couple of things.
>
>1) With the new code you can't see prop-mods on a dir, without the possiblility
>of also seeing all the entries in that dir as well. I can live with this,
>just wanted to make sure everyone else can as well.
>
>2) If you run svn status on a non-versioned item, you get an error. That
>is what one would expect, except for the following use case. It would be
>nice sometimes to run svn status -un *, so that you get a shallow glimpse of
>the current directory and its children. The problem is that if * includes
>non versioned items, you get an error.
>
>3) If you do svn status -un *, the head revision is reported for each of
>the entries in *.
>
>I have made some small changes to clients/cmdline to modify the behaviour
>of 2 and 3. Specifically, if multiple targets are passed, svn status prints
>'? filename' when it receives ENOENT or SVN_ERR_BAD_FILENAME errors. 2nd,
>the status command only prints the head revision on the last target in the
>array.
>
>What do people think of these changes?
>
+1. I submitted an issue about this (actually, two: 491 and 492), so
obviously I agree with you.
--
Brane �ibej <br...@xbc.nu> http://www.xbc.nu/brane/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org