On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 11:55:33AM -0400, Trent Fisher wrote: > On 06/26/2012 05:02 PM, Stefan Sperling wrote: > >On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 10:13:50PM +0200, Johan Corveleyn wrote: > >>On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 8:07 PM,<kmra...@rockwellcollins.com> wrote: > >>>Any reason svnsync couldn't grow a "--fail-on-access-error" option? > >>Sure, I think that could be useful (as long as it's not the default > >>(backwards compat)). > >Would printing a warning not be sufficient? > That would be an improvement, but since it seems like sometimes this > behavior may be desired or expected, it may be better to always > print a warning, and bomb out given an extra option like that > suggested by Kevin, above.
Yes, I agree that would make sense.
