On 10.11.2016 17:19, Daniel Shahaf wrote: > Stefan Hett wrote on Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 11:52:43 +0100: >> On 11/10/2016 8:08 AM, Cooke, Mark wrote: >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Stefan [mailto:luke1...@posteo.de] >>>> Sent: 09 November 2016 21:43 >>>> To: users@subversion.apache.org >>>> Subject: Re: Feature request: Restoring pristines >>>> >>>> On 11/9/2016 21:22, Branko Čibej wrote: >>>>> On 08.11.2016 21:51, Stefan wrote: >>>>>> I didn't test this, but >>>>> This is how all down-voted stackoverflow answers start. :) >>>>> >>>>> -- Brane >>>>> >>>> OK, I see. Tested and it doesn't work. ;-) >>>> >>>> Certainly sounds like a reasonable request for an improvement to have at >>>> least svn co auto correct the case of missing pristine files, as far as >>>> I'm concerned. >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> Stefan >>> Would this not fit better as part of `update` rather than `checkout` over >>> an existing working copy? >>> >>> ~ mark c >>> >> IMO it should be part of both, since both operations (aka: svn update as >> well as svn checkout) will error out, if a pristine would be required but >> missing (and this is some error, the operation could easily resolve without >> user interaction). >> > I thought of 'cleanup' as the appropriate place, since fixing violated > invariants should be opt-in;
An option that makes 'svn cleanup' connect to the repository? Cleanup has always been a local-only command. -- Brane
