Johan Corveleyn wrote: >It's not specific to 'svn update' per se, but it's logical that it >leads to this discussion, because it is a (commonly used) case where >the pristine is not actually needed for the operation (if there is no >actual incoming update to the concerned file). 'svn diff' and 'svn >revert' cannot do their work without the pristine, but 'update without >an actual incoming edit'? > >And even with an 'incoming edit on update (on top of local mod)' it >might in theory be possible to delay the download of the full pristine >until after conflict-resolution decision (but I imagine that's even >more difficult to untangle). > >Also, why should 'svn update' be in the business of (silently) >restoring "the branch's invariant" (even when it does not need the >file), and not any other operation (like 'svn status -u' for example)?
Thanks for adding all this rationale. +1 to it all. 100% agreed. - Julian
