Hi All,
I reviewed the patch and I am fine with it.
We did not hear any technical objections for this patch so far.
Bert said we can implement it via separate dry_run editor but it would
end up copying the code from subversion/libsvn_wc/update_editor.c as we
need access to wc.
Anyways we have a similar implementation(if not exact) for merge
--dry-run, I mean *no* dry_run_merge_editor.
One good thing about this patch it helped Arwin to find a regression
caused by a commit(r1075802) which our testsuite could not find.
My +1 for this patch for the following reasons.
* It is a straightforward way to do dry-run(I remember thrice I have
been asked by CVS converts for equivalent of cvs update -n).
* I understand the patch fully.
* It exercises our code for more test-coverage(As exhibited by r1075802)
Unless there are no objection I will commit this patch post I receive a
r1075802 regression fix(and testcase) from either Daniel Becroft or Arwin.
With regards
Kamesh Jayachandran
On 03/02/2011 09:00 PM, Arwin Arni wrote:
Hi All,
Thanks for all the feedback.
As Stefan said, yes, this patch was an immense learning experience for
me and I wouldn't trade it for anything else.
All said and done, I hope this is not the end of this patch. It
implements exactly what the issue tracker describes and I think it
would be an excellent feature enhancement. So, I would really
appreciate it if this patch gets a closer look.
If anybody can throw light on how this can be done any differently
(not some combination of existing commands, but a working update
--dry-run), I would gladly lend my ears.
Thanks and regards,
Arwin Arni
