On Wed, Mar 16, 2022 at 9:59 PM Julian Foad <julianf...@apache.org> wrote: > Daniel Shahaf wrote: > > Also, why is this specific to «svn update»? > > It's not specific to update. Update is a particular case that Karl cares > about so I looked at doing "update" first. Implementing this approach in one > subcommand at a time could be considered releasable incremental steps, > because each one is a further optimisation.
It's not specific to 'svn update' per se, but it's logical that it leads to this discussion, because it is a (commonly used) case where the pristine is not actually needed for the operation (if there is no actual incoming update to the concerned file). 'svn diff' and 'svn revert' cannot do their work without the pristine, but 'update without an actual incoming edit'? And even with an 'incoming edit on update (on top of local mod)' it might in theory be possible to delay the download of the full pristine until after conflict-resolution decision (but I imagine that's even more difficult to untangle). Also, why should 'svn update' be in the business of (silently) restoring "the branch's invariant" (even when it does not need the file), and not any other operation (like 'svn status -u' for example)? -- Johan
