Not reporting the change via the editor drive will break reporting that intermediate change as a tree conflict for local shadowed nodes (E.g. replacements)
Bert Huijben (Cell phone) From: Daniel Shahaf Sent: 13-10-2012 19:16 To: Alan Barrett; dev@subversion.apache.org Subject: Re: Update that pulls a null delta Stefan Sperling wrote on Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 17:54:07 +0200: > On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 05:02:56PM +0200, Daniel Shahaf wrote: > > Alan Barrett wrote on Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 15:16:00 +0200: > > > On Fri, 12 Oct 2012, Daniel Shahaf wrote: > > >> If an update pulls in a null delta --- eg, because it updates across two > > >> revisions that revert each other --- then it should behave as though it > > >> pulled nothing at all: output no 'U filename' lines, and print "At > > >> revision %ld". > > >> > > >> Right? > > > > > > As a user, I want to see the 'U filename' report. > > > > > > > Perhaps ' filename' would be more accurate? That way the output is > > still clear that "Nothing happened". > > In my opinion a null delta is an edge-case not worth special-casing. > I understand academic interest in the question. But I wouldn't see > much point in changing the UI for this. It's not academic, I started this thread because I actually ran into this case and the output confused me.
