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 requested a switch, I think both of those are a bit cryptic. We can make the message much more reassuring: * If the new URL is different from the old one, as is usually expected, then say "Switched" instead of "Updated" or "At". * When we say "Switched", say the target URL as well as the revision. * If the new URL is the same as the old one then the operation degenerates to an update, so say "Updated" or "At" depending on whether there was a change of content, just as we do at present. And maybe warn the user that the WC is already at that URL, because that's usually unexpected in interactive use. So: $ svn sw ... # URL change, content change [...] Switched to file://.../repo/X, revision 4. $ svn sw ... # URL change, no content change Switched to file://.../repo/X, revision 4. $ svn sw ... # No URL change, content change [...] Updated to revision 4. $ svn sw ... # No URL change, no content change At revision 4. Or, if we like the option of being more vocal when there's no URL change, I think the best way to present that would be an additional message just before the current "Updated" or "At" message: $ svn sw ... # No URL change, content change [...] Already at URL file://.../repo/X. Updated to revision 4. $ svn sw ... # No URL change, no content change Already at URL file://.../repo/X. At revision 4. I'm not currently coding this, it's just something I noticed today that we could improve. Agree? - Julian
