On Sat, Dec 23, 2000 at 05:50:05AM -0500, Greg Hudson wrote:
> >> Perhaps we need to add a bit to the version number to mean
> >> "actually, my version is whatever my parent directory's version is,
> >> but that's equivalent to what I say it is here." (This does not
> >> destroy the ability to sever a working directory subtree from the
> >> hierarchy and use it; if you simply ignore that bit on the
> >> directory "svn" gets run in, everything should work fine.) Note
> >> that if we support "svn update -l" (update without recursing), then
> >> we have to *unset* this bit in every subdirectory version since the
> >> assertion might not be true any more.
> > Unfortunately, that would mean that a directory could not be
> > detached from its parent and used elsewhere.
> I addressed this issue, if you'll have another read.
Eek! Yup, I see.
If the parent is missing, then we fall back to the local revision. The
parent will (generally) be *at least* the local revision. Quite possibly, it
will have been updated to new revisions and we just never worry about
tweaking it in the subdirs.
Yah... that might work.
(although I'd still have issues with the version resource URL that gets
stored for each file/dir; but if they can be switched over to use node IDs
then I could skip updating those unless a file/dir truly changed)
> >> Perhaps an "I have version exceptions in my subtree" bit in the
> >> directory version? If so, that
> > The detach problem again.
> There's no detach problem, but it does mean that operations in a
> subdir (when it has not been detached) will have to percolate up
> through parent directories, which is odd and possibly error-prone.
You're right. Again. :-)
Okay. Let's say an "attach" problem, then :-)
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
Received on Sat Oct 21 14:36:18 2006