On Tue, Jan 08, 2013 at 11:03:41AM +0100, Neels Hofmeyr wrote: > I've just used 'svn patch'. There were missing target files, but I only > noticed a lot later; because all the text conflicts had .svnpatch.rej > files, but the missing targets were only listed in 'svn patch' output. > > So in my particular case it would have helped to have .svnpatch.rej > files for missing targets. I would have noticed the lack of a target > and I could have immediately looked at the diff chunks without > having to browse through the original patch file. Does that > generally make sense? It would sometimes need to create parent folders > to place a rej file... > > ~Neels
Yes, it should probably do that. However, simple user errors such as using the wrong --strip argument can create a *lot* of skips. So I'd prefer a single 'svnpatch.skipped.rej' within the target dir, rather than littering the working copy with a lot of 'svnpatch.rej' files. Note that UNIX patch creates a single Oops.rej files for files which don't exist. Assume for a second that 'svn patch' already had the ability to flag conflicts in the working copy (this is a planned feature). Should we then still create an unversioned skip file or do something else?
