On Mar 2, 2011, at 7:50 AM, Mark Phippard wrote: > 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: <snip> >> >> 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.
Indeed, I have these tips for users because (1) "update" does not have a --dry-run that will show conflicts, and (2) "status -U" also does not show that information. Knowing ahead-of-time if an update will produce conflicts is useful information. ==== Run the merge command like this (recursive by default) to see what files would get modified and how, including which would have conflicts: svn merge -r BASE:HEAD --dry-run . To see the changes that update would try to merge, run this command: svn diff -r BASE:HEAD [list of files and directories] ==== -Travis
