Would having an explicit
Skipped duplicated target 'foo'
notification address your concern?
Julian Foad wrote on Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 15:47:34 +0100:
> Hi Daniel.
>
> In the issue, you give the example "$svn add f* *o", and then claim svn
> should eliminate duplicate args for you. But why should it?
>
> That could be seen as trying to be "too clever" and help users to do what
> they didn't mean to do. For example, I can recall severall times over the
> years when I've tried to issue a command such as
>
> <cmd> <argument1> <argument2>
>
> but due to finger error when copy-and-pasting the arguments, accidentally
> issued
>
> <cmd> <argument1> <argument1>
>
> It doesn't seem obvious to me that quietly eliding duplicate arguments is a
> good thing.
>
> The only precedent I can think of is that "svn commit" has always (or for a
> very long time) eliminated duplicates -- not only duplicate cmd-line args,
> but duplicate targets found by recursion.
>
> In simple cases such as your example, with only one file involved and a very
> short name, it's clearly a minor convenience to have it un-duplicated for
> you. But if I'm pasting unversioned file-paths into an "add" command from
> the output of "svn status | grep -F '^?'", and there are a dozen of them and
> their paths are more than 80 columns wide, then I'm unlikely to notice if I
> accidentally paste two copies of the same path instead of two different paths.
>
>
> In short, -0.5.
>
> - Julian
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Daniel Shahaf <d...@daniel.shahaf.name>
> > To: Philip Martin <phi...@codematters.co.uk>
> > Cc: dev@subversion.apache.org
> > Sent: Thursday, 29 March 2012, 12:30
> > Subject: Re: [Issue 4154] New - svn add foo foo complains
> >
> > Philip Martin wrote on Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 10:32:42 +0100:
> >> danie...@tigris.org writes:
> >>
> >> > http://subversion.tigris.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4154
> >>
> >> > % ls
> >> > A foo iota
> >> > % $svn add f* *o
> >> > A foo
> >> > svn: warning: W150002: '/tmp/svn/wc1/trunk/foo' is already
> > under version control
> >> > subversion/svn/add-cmd.c:108: (apr_err=200009)
> >> > subversion/svn/add-cmd.c:103: (apr_err=200009)
> >> > svn: E200009: Could not add all targets because some targets are
> > already versioned
> >> > subversion/svn/add-cmd.c:94: (apr_err=200009)
> >> > svn: E200009: Illegal target for the requested operation
> >> > zsh: exit 1 $SVN add f* *o
> >> > %
> >> >
> >> > svn should be smart enough to uniq() the targets, rather than error
> > out on me
> >> > because I tried to add it twice.
> >>
> >> This issue is "svn add foo foo" complaining that foo is already
> >> versioned. Is add the only command that is wrong?
> >
> > As you point out, 'add' and 'mkdir' are similar.
> > 'revert' even today
> > doesn't error out in the idempotency scenario ('svn $subc foo &&
> > svn
> > $subc foo'; the second invocation errors out for $subc =~ /add|mkdir/.)
> >
> >> Should we eliminate duplicates in all commands?
> >
> > I think we shouldn't eliminate duplicates in, for example, 'cat'.
> >
> >> Silently?
> >>
> >> $ svn add foo foo # foo unversioned
> >> "already versioned" error
> >>
> >> $ svn mkdir X X # no X
> >> "file exists" error
> >>
> >> $ svn rm foo foo # foo versioned
> >> no error
> >>
> >> $ svn rm --force foo foo # foo added
> >> "does not exist" error
> >>
> >> $ svn rm foo foo # foo versioned and deleted
> >> no error
> >>
> >> $ svn revert foo foo # foo versioned
> >> no error
> >>
> >> $ svn revert foo foo # foo added
> >> "Skipped foo" notification
> >>
> >> --
> >> Philip
> >
