Stefan Sperling wrote on Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 11:27:25 +0100: > 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 >
Actually I was thinking of the "(p)ermanently" of the SSL cert prompt. That doesn't affect your answer, though --- people who needed to not pass --non-interactive in 1.7 will need to pass --force-interactive in 1.8. > 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.
