Philip Martin wrote: > Julian Foad <julianf...@apache.org> writes: > > Julian Foad wrote: > >> The bug seems to be that 'svn patch' fails to apply any patch of > >> this form, that tries to change a property value from empty to > >> non-empty. > > > > I committed a test for this in http://svn.apache.org/r1834628 > > I'm confused, you are treating as '' special? Suppose an existing > property P has value 'foo'. Should a patch that adds P with value 'bar'
The issue is about a patch that *changes* the current value to another value, not a patch that *adds* a property. I am pointing out that a patch that changes the empty value '' to 'bar' should be (and isn't being) applied successfully to a property that already has the empty value ''. The patch format for modifying an empty value is mostly the same as the patch format for adding a new property: [[[ Property changes on: f ___________________________________________________________________ Added: empty ## -0,0 +1 ## +foo \ No newline at end of property ]]] vs. [[[ Property changes on: f ___________________________________________________________________ Modified: empty ## -0,0 +1 ## +foo \ No newline at end of property ]]] It's similar to the ambiguous patch representation of create a file or add text to an empty file. In that case, 'svn patch' first creates the file if it doesn't exist, and in both scenarios adds the patch text. For a property patch, a property-patch header line specifies whether it's a modify or an add, so there is no ambiguity. If the patch asks to 'modify' from empty to non-empty, when the target property already exists and has an empty value, this should certainly succeed. - Julian
