I vote for "a bug".
Harald Karner wrote on Tue, Feb 08, 2011 at 16:20:57 +0100: > On 08.02.2011 15:34, Andy Levy wrote: > >On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 07:53, Harald Karner<harald.kar...@gmx.net> wrote: > >>Hi! > >> > >>when I do a svn status -u I get the following result: > >> > >> > >>$ svn status -u test.txt dir1/ > >>M * 210 test.txt > >>Status against revision: 213 > >> * 212 dir1 > >>Status against revision: 213 > >> > >> > >>but when I add --depth empty I get this: > >> > >>$ svn status -u --depth empty test.txt dir1/ > >>Status against revision: 213 > >> * 212 dir1 > >>Status against revision: 213 > >> > >> > >>Is this a bug, that the modifications for test.txt are not displayed or is > >>it intended behaviour? > > > >Seems like intended behavior to me. You've asked for the status of a > >WC without consideration of its child items (--depth empty) > > I have asked for the status of test.txt and dir1/ without > consideration of child items. Of course a --depth parameter does not > make much sense for files, but I think the current behaviour is at > least misleading. Especially because svn update behaves different: > > $ svn update --depth empty test.txt dir1/ > G test.txt > Updated to revision 213. > U dir1 > Updated to revision 213. > > So, if it is "wrong" to return the status for a file with --depth > empty, why does "svn update" update the file with --depth empty > given? > > > >>If this is on purpose, what is the proper way to retrieve the status of a > >>mixed list of files and directories? > > > >In what way does your first command not achieve this result? > > The first command would also return the status of the files and > subdirectories of dir1/. > I'm trying to get the status for exactly those (and only those) > files and directories that I pass as to svn status as command line > arguments, i.e. I don't want the status of subdirectories or files > in folders.
