On Fri, Dec 22, 2000 at 08:01:14AM -0600, Karl Fogel wrote:
> Greg Hudson <ghudson@MIT.EDU> writes:
> > > We agree that this seems to be the case, and therefore that the
> > > ancestor_path argument to replace_file() should go away. (There
> > > may be analogous changes implied by this elsewhere in the editor; I
> > > haven't studied that question yet but expect it to be obvious when
> > > I do.)
> > Presumably the ancestry arguments should go away for
> > replace_directory() as well.
> > I can make the requisite changes to xml_output.c when the time comes,
> > assuming I'm around. If I don't happen to be around, they should be
> > really simple; just remove the arguments and pass NULL and 0 to
> > output_addreplace().
> Okay, thanks for the guide.
> (Note we're just talking about ancestor_path -- the ancestor_revision
> is still necessary.)
Why is the ancestor_revision still necessary? Initially, we were saying that
parameter only has meaning when ancestor_path is present. If you're saying
it stays, then it also seems to imply that it has meaning outside of the
presence of ancestor_path.
I like my set_revision() and copyfrom_* naming better. Much clearer. I have
no idea on the state/semantics of these ancestor_* things now. Especially if
you toss one and not the other :-(
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
Received on Sat Oct 21 14:36:18 2006