Daniel Shahaf wrote: > +1 Files as enhancement issue #4006, <http://subversion.tigris.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4006>.
- Julian > Julian Foad wrote on Mon, Sep 05, 2011 at 11:59:08 +0100: > > On Mon, 2011-09-05 at 13:42 +0300, Daniel Shahaf wrote: > > > Julian Foad wrote on Mon, Sep 05, 2011 at 10:38:02 +0100: > > > > The final message from "svn switch" is exactly the same as for "svn > > > > update" -- either: > > > > > > > > $ svn sw file://.../repo/X wc > > > > A wc/foo > > > > Updated to revision 4. > > > > > > > > or: > > > > > > > > $ svn sw file://.../repo/X wc > > > > At revision 4. > > > > > > > > depending on whether there was a change of content. To the user who > > > > > > That's a useful difference, I'd be happy to preserve it --- e.g., > > > > > > (At $URL,|Switched to $URL,|Already at $URL,|Updated to) revision N. > > > > > > (first two examples are for a new URL without/with content change; last > > > two examples are for a non-new URL without/with content change) > > > > I'd be happy to preserve the distinction, but not like that. I suggest > > a more orthogonal output: > > > > Switched to $URL. > > At revision 4. > > > > Switched to $URL. > > Updated to revision 4. > > > > Already at $URL. > > At revision 4. > > > > Already at $URL. > > Updated to revision 4. > > > > I don't know how important backward compatibility is, but that preserves > > a final backward-compatible line, as well as being clear and > > unambiguous. (If we think one-line output is more important than this > > kind of backward compatibility, simply concatenate the two messages on > > one line.) > > > > - Julian
