On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 12:34:44AM +0200, Stefan wrote: > On 10/27/2016 21:45, Stefan Sperling wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 02:22:25PM +0200, Patrick Steinhardt wrote: > >> Hi, > >> > >> finally got around to update my patch regarding checkouts to > >> existing directories. The semantics have been changed to accept > >> checkouts iff > >> > >> - the target directory does not exist > >> - the target directory is empty > >> - the repository to check out is empty > >> - the --force flag is given > > I think this makes a lot of sense. I just have not yet had time to > > review and test your patch. I will try to do so soon. > > > > Does anyone reading this list have any concerns about this change? > > I'm +1 on the general design/behavior change. Didn't do a code/patch > review, though. > > On a minor side note: > While talking last week on IRC to Daniel, he mentioned (on a different > topic) that in general it might be preferable to use a separate explicit > command line options to control the exact behavior over one which > impacts several behaviors at once. Reflecting that onto this case, it > crossed my mind that --allow-non-empty-directory (or --allow-non-empty) > might be preferable over adding that behavior to the --force parameter, > since the --force parameter has (or in the future might have) other > implications in addition to allowing a co into a non-empty directory. > > Though in this case, I don't have a strong opinion to go one way or the > other. > > Regards, > Stefan > >
I think I agree with introducing a new flag here. Mixing and extending semantics of an existing flag surely is not a nice route to go. I'd vote for '--allow-non-empty-target'. Regards Patrick -- Patrick Steinhardt, Entwickler elego Software Solutions GmbH, http://www.elego.de Gebäude 12 (BIG), Gustav-Meyer-Allee 25, 13355 Berlin, Germany Sitz der Gesellschaft: Berlin, USt-IdNr.: DE 163214194 Handelsregister: Amtsgericht Charlottenburg HRB 77719 Geschäftsführer: Olaf Wagner
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
