On 08/13/2011 05:22 PM, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 13, 2011 at 04:45:18PM +0200, Neels J Hofmeyr wrote:
>> I very much agree that saying "moved from revision 42" is straight nonsense.
>> Saying "Copied From" and "Moved From" in the same info output, while it may
>> be correct and sensible
On Sat, Aug 13, 2011 at 04:45:18PM +0200, Neels J Hofmeyr wrote:
> I very much agree that saying "moved from revision 42" is straight nonsense.
> Saying "Copied From" and "Moved From" in the same info output, while it may
> be correct and sensible to us devs, is nevertheless ambiguous.
>
> Can you
On 08/13/2011 12:31 PM, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> Maybe this is a more convincing argument:
>
> If the client printed 'Moved from URL@REV' it would be printing nonsense.
> It is a nonsense thing to say "I moved the node foo as found in revision 42
> to the local node bar". Revisions are immutable s
On Sat, Aug 13, 2011 at 03:01:02AM +0200, Neels J Hofmeyr wrote:
> stsp, you are whipping out fancy words, issue numbers and mail threads mixed
> with trivial info, about things entirely unrelated to *just* printing
> "Moved" instead of "Copied" in 'svn' command line client output.
>
> You said it
On 08/12/2011 11:04 PM, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 10:11:03PM +0200, Neels J Hofmeyr wrote:
>> Discussing 'svn info' output:
>>
>> What do you think, for moved-here items, should we rename "Copied From URL"
>> and "Copied From Rev" to "Moved From *"? Leaving "Copied From *" as
On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 10:11:03PM +0200, Neels J Hofmeyr wrote:
> Discussing 'svn info' output:
>
> What do you think, for moved-here items, should we rename "Copied From URL"
> and "Copied From Rev" to "Moved From *"? Leaving "Copied From *" as-is will
> be confusing to the average user person..
On 08/12/2011 12:55 PM, Julian Foad wrote:
> Stefan Sperling wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 08:33:43AM +0100, Julian Foad wrote:
>>> Neels J Hofmeyr wrote:
Hi stsp,
check this WIP patch out, attached. (I've also appended a wild test script
that runs all sorts of things. Readi
On 08/12/2011 10:44 AM, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> How badly does changing this output break "make check"?
Interestingly enough, my 'make check' had *no errors* at all.
Seems like the test fu ignores extraneous lines altogether. Possibly you
already fixed all that when adding the tree conflicts info
Stefan Sperling wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 08:33:43AM +0100, Julian Foad wrote:
> > Neels J Hofmeyr wrote:
> > > Hi stsp,
> > >
> > > check this WIP patch out, attached. (I've also appended a wild test script
> > > that runs all sorts of things. Reading its bottom-most output may
> > > suff
On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 08:33:43AM +0100, Julian Foad wrote:
> Neels J Hofmeyr wrote:
> > Hi stsp,
> >
> > check this WIP patch out, attached. (I've also appended a wild test script
> > that runs all sorts of things. Reading its bottom-most output may suffice.)
> >
> > I'd prefer printing the pat
On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 02:56:28AM +0200, Neels J Hofmeyr wrote:
> Hi stsp,
>
> check this WIP patch out, attached. (I've also appended a wild test script
> that runs all sorts of things. Reading its bottom-most output may suffice.)
>
> I'd prefer printing the paths relative to the "current worki
Neels J Hofmeyr wrote:
> Hi stsp,
>
> check this WIP patch out, attached. (I've also appended a wild test script
> that runs all sorts of things. Reading its bottom-most output may suffice.)
>
> I'd prefer printing the paths relative to the "current working dir" instead
> of relative to the WC ro
Hi stsp,
check this WIP patch out, attached. (I've also appended a wild test script
that runs all sorts of things. Reading its bottom-most output may suffice.)
I'd prefer printing the paths relative to the "current working dir" instead
of relative to the WC root (as this patch does now).
Say the
13 matches
Mail list logo
