On 2024-01-10 09:44:51 +0100, Johan Corveleyn wrote: > Interesting discussion. I agree it should at least be documented, and > perhaps be made a bit more clear from the output of 'revert' (but not > sure how far we can go without breaking compat). Changing the current > behavior is probably a more risky move, given the maturity of SVN and > backwards compatibility etc.
Another solution would be to make the behavior configurable (in .subversion/config). [...] > BTW, I know about a similar issue of 'spurious revert notifications', > with mismatching timestamps (lastmod-time different from svn metadata, > a condition that is normally fixed by 'svn cleanup'): if you "touch" a > file in your WC so it has a different timestamp from the metadata, it > will be notified when running 'svn revert' (and I believe the metadata > is adjusted in this case). So that's another source of spurious revert > notifications. I thought I had discussed this on one of our > mailinglists, but I can't find it. The fact that revert fixes > timestamps is mentioned in passing in issue SVN-4162. But there are no properties related to the behavior concerning timestamps (a "touch" may be done on purpose for timestamp-based utilities like "make"). -- Vincent Lefèvre <vinc...@vinc17.net> - Web: <https://www.vinc17.net/> 100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: <https://www.vinc17.net/blog/> Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / AriC project (LIP, ENS-Lyon)
