On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 3:11 PM, Vincent Lefevre <vincent-...@vinc17.net> wrote: > On 2016-03-03 10:31:52 +0100, Johan Corveleyn wrote: >> No, of course not :-). I just gave an example where the output was >> broken (host not found), as opposed to another error condition (server >> reponds "URL 'X' non-existent in revision Y") where the xml response >> is still valid. Ignoring implementation (which I always do when I'm >> arguing about behavior), this seems quite weird to me. > > No, this is different. In the former case, this is a server or > communication problem: it is not possible to output the info > because it is not possible to know what it is. In the latter case, > the communication is successful, so that it is possible to output > the info.
Agreed, it's different. But it's still weird / inconsistent IMO. As I said, I don't know anything about the implementation of --xml, but it seems to me that svn could easily complete the output by closing the root element with "</info>". Apparently *something* goes wrong executing the info request ... let's just cleanup nicely. Another example, no server communication needed: [[[ C:\>svn info --xml . <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> <info> svn: E155007: 'C:\' is not a working copy ]]] But, go inside a working copy, and use a non-existing path: [[[ C:\WorkingCopy>svn info --xml blah <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> <info> svn: warning: W155010: The node 'C:\WorkingCopy\blah' was not found. </info> svn: E200009: Could not display info for all targets because some targets don't exist ]]] Why </info> in one case and not in the other? As a user, I see no reason for that. -- Johan
