Julian Foad wrote: > C. Michael Pilato wrote: >> [...] So I agree, both switch and update should carry the >> server-recognized meaning of 'ignore-ancestry' in both the client >> and RA layers.
In r1465292 I added the 'ignore_ancestry' flag to the RA 'update' APIs, for consistency with 'switch'. That's enough to satisfy my symmetry cravings at the moment. I do not currently intend to add that flag to the svn_client 'update' API and the 'svn up' UI. I don't think there is a good reason to add it to the APIs that implement 'svn status --show-updates'. Nor do I intend to do anything about the other inconsistencies (the 'adds_as_modifications' and 'ignore_unver_obstructions' flags that are available for 'update' but not 'switch') in the short term, although after 1.8 I might. - Julian
