[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       subversion-issues
Subject:    [Issue 563] Changed - 'svn up' has no equivilant of "changes already exist"
From:       issues () subversion ! tigris ! org
Date:       2001-12-04 17:23:05
[Download RAW message or body]

http://subversion.tigris.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=563

*** shadow/issues_15/563	Mon Nov 26 11:40:24 2001
--- shadow/issues_15/563.tmp.5427	Tue Dec  4 09:23:05 2001
***************
*** 11,17 ****
  |  Reported By: saurik@tigris.org                                            |
  |      CC list: Cc:                                                          |
  +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
! |    Milestone: TargetMilestone: 1.0                                         |
  |          URL:                                                              |
  +============================================================================+
  |                              DESCRIPTION                                   |
--- 11,17 ----
  |  Reported By: saurik@tigris.org                                            |
  |      CC list: Cc:                                                          |
  +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
! |    Milestone: TargetMilestone: bite-sized                                  |
  |          URL:                                                              |
  +============================================================================+
  |                              DESCRIPTION                                   |
***************
*** 29,31 ****
--- 29,42 ----
  program with different args, or look at its exit code more carefully.
  
  This might be a good thing for a volunteer to fix.  :-)
+ 
+ 
+ ------- Additional Comments From kfogel@tigris.org  2001-12-04 09:23 -------
+ Listing as a bite-sized task.
+ 
+ Yes, patch does detect when the changes have already been
+ applied.  We just need to invoke patch in a certain way, and
+ check its return value more carefully, in order to take
+ advantage of this behavior.  Currently, we just bail on any
+ non-zero return code, which is probably not sophisticated
+ enough. :-)

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]