You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@subversion.apache.org by Zibetti Paolo <pa...@sisal.it> on 2011/11/11 11:43:34 UTC

svn copy doesn't honour "--quiet" in 1.7.1 ??

With Subversion version 1.6.x, I could add the "--quiet" switch to the
"svn copy" command to suppress all output in case the command succeeds.

With Subversion version 1.7.1 "svn copy --quiet ..."  always prints
informational messages such as "Committed revision 42."
Other commands such as "svn commit", on the contrary, honour the
"-quiet" switch as expected.

Is this an intended behaviour or a bug ?

Thanks, bye


Re: svn copy doesn't honour "--quiet" in 1.7.1 ??

Posted by Daniel Shahaf <d....@daniel.shahaf.name>.
Philip Martin wrote on Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 11:16:45 +0000:
> "Zibetti Paolo" <pa...@sisal.it> writes:
> 
> > With Subversion version 1.6.x, I could add the "--quiet" switch to the
> > "svn copy" command to suppress all output in case the command succeeds.
> >
> > With Subversion version 1.7.1 "svn copy --quiet ..."  always prints
> > informational messages such as "Committed revision 42."
> > Other commands such as "svn commit", on the contrary, honour the
> > "-quiet" switch as expected.
> >
> > Is this an intended behaviour or a bug ?
> 
> That looks like an unintended change in behaviour.  I don't see any
> discussion around the time the change (r988627) was made.
> 

This has been fixed on trunk and nominated for backport to 1.7.2.

Re: svn copy doesn't honour "--quiet" in 1.7.1 ??

Posted by Philip Martin <ph...@wandisco.com>.
"Zibetti Paolo" <pa...@sisal.it> writes:

> With Subversion version 1.6.x, I could add the "--quiet" switch to the
> "svn copy" command to suppress all output in case the command succeeds.
>
> With Subversion version 1.7.1 "svn copy --quiet ..."  always prints
> informational messages such as "Committed revision 42."
> Other commands such as "svn commit", on the contrary, honour the
> "-quiet" switch as expected.
>
> Is this an intended behaviour or a bug ?

That looks like an unintended change in behaviour.  I don't see any
discussion around the time the change (r988627) was made.

-- 
Philip