On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 12:19:02PM +0200, Daniel Shahaf wrote: > Stefan Sperling wrote on Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 11:03:56 +0100: > > Why would you *not* want to do this? Don't say "because the bug isn't > > in svn" since that is clear. We're not fixing a bug in 'svn'. We're > > making it work properly by default in more environments. > > I didn't say you should not apply the patch --- I was just raising > a point you seemed to have glossed on. You see that point and still > think the patch is an improvement, so I don't have a reason you > shouldn't apply the patch...
OK, thanks! > > Or can you name a serious problem with this behaviour change? > > I cannot think of one but perhaps I'm overlooking something. > > Well, since you ask, does it break > echo p | svn up > ? That will postpone all conflicts since with my patch it's the same as svn up --non-interactive And if it was interactive it would only answer one of possibly several conflict prompts in the first place. You probably meant the equivalent of yes p | svn up With the patch applied you can either use yes p | svn up --force-interactive or, as usual, svn up --accept p to postpone all conflicts. Or svn up --accept ':-P' of course.
