On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 8:42 AM, Hyrum K Wright <hy...@hyrumwright.org> wrote: > On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 4:14 AM, Bert Huijben <b...@qqmail.nl> wrote: >> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Arwin Arni [mailto:ar...@collab.net] >>> Sent: woensdag 2 maart 2011 10:49 >>> To: dev@subversion.apache.org >>> Subject: [PATCH] Add --dry-run flag to "svn update" client command >>> >>> Hi All, >>> >>> In my effort to understand the delta editor API, I took it upon myself >>> to try and implement the --dry-run flag for "svn update". >>> With Kamesh's guidance, I think I've managed to pull it off. >>> >>> Here is the relevant Issue. >>> http://subversion.tigris.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2491 >>> >>> I have attached a log message and a patch that implements --dry-run for >>> update. >>> >>> Currently, externals are handled inside >>> subversion/libsvn_client/externals.c by running checkout/switch. For a >>> dry-run update to mimic a real update, the notifications have to be the >>> same. Since some of these notifications are generated by the above >>> mentioned checkout/switch runs, I have to implement dry-run for them >>> also. I'll take this up as a follow-up exercise. Now, the dry-run will >>> simply ignore any externals in the working copy. >>> >>> Please review this and share your thoughts. >> >> I don't think this is the way we should implement this. >> >> This patch adds an if before every operation in the update editor that >> changes the working copy. This makes the update editor harder to maintain, >> while you really only need a simple editor implementation that notifies its >> output to get a dry run output. >> >> That would allow the dry run code to be maintained independently without >> obfuscating the existing update editor. >> >> >> Besides: I don't know why the update editor really needs --dry run support. >> We always told our users to use svn status -U, which shows the same >> information in a generally more useful output. >> >> A dry run update is a nice feature for 'svn' with console notification, but >> implemented this way it doesn't help any other Subversion client, while >> status -U does. Should we improve status -U instead? > > Agreed. I'm not a fan of duplicating this functionality (and > maintaining them in parallel when they inevitably drift) as part of > 'svn up'. Let's improve what we already have, rather than inventing > 'svn st -U'
I think Arwin has some good points. Unless we let update do its thing and discard the updates we cannot know if there are going to be conflicts. I do not think svn st -U would ever grow a feature like that would it? I also do not see why clients could not use this. Presumably it sends notifications just like merge --dry-run. -- Thanks Mark Phippard http://markphip.blogspot.com/
