RE: RA properties (was: Re: one more "Greg issue" :-))

Can someone help me out a little? What do RA
and WC stand for? I haven't had much time during
the holidays to read a lot of detail about subversion
yet, but I have been trying to keep up with the
mailing list.

Thanks,
-Peter

--
Peter A. Vogel
Manager, Configuration Management
Arsin Corporation
4800 Great America Parkway Suite 425, Santa Clara, CA 95054
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Karl Fogel [mailto:kfogel@galois.collab.net]
> Sent: Sunday, December 31, 2000 10:43 AM
> To: Greg Stein
> Cc: dev@subversion.tigris.org
> Subject: Re: RA properties (was: Re: one more "Greg issue" :-))
> 
> 
> Greg Stein <gstein@lyra.org> writes:
> > > Oh, I remember that.  I'm just realizing now that it makes me all
> > > quesy...
> > 
> > What part? That an RA might need to store data, or that it 
> gets stored in
> > the WC?
> 
> Just that there are implementation-specific cookies the network layer
> needs to store on the client side (the WC being the only place to
> store it there, obviously).  The distinction I'm making is between
> data that _any_ conceivable implementation must use, such as revision
> numbers and paths, versus data that only certain implementations use.
> 
> I'm not totally, unbearably quesy at it, just mildly quesy.  I'm sorry
> I haven't made some sort of non-vague response about this yet.  I
> thought I was going to work through the holidays, but various personal
> obligations made that unrealistic, so I haven't been full-time this
> week. :-( Will be able to think about this issue uninterruptedly on
> Tuesday, though.
> 
> > I haven't even started on my crusade to get rid of the SVN 
> equivalent for
> > .cvspass. IMO, that information should be stored in the WC 
> rather than
> > depending on information associated the user who happens to 
> be logged in and
> > running the command. The SVN "rc" file can contain 
> defaults, but the actual
> > values used (could be different from the defaults!) should 
> be stored in the
> > WC. And since those are (also) RA-specific values, I'm not 
> sure how we can
> > avoid the basic concept of private RA properties. Now... 
> where we put
> > those... doesn't matter to me.
> 
> Oh, wow, *completely* with you on that one.  Authentication
> information should be stored in the WC that resulted from successful
> authentication.
> 
> And this is a good argument for the unavoidability of storing
> implementation-specific data (translation: "data Karl isn't intimately
> familiar with") in the WC. :-)
> 
> Yes, I'm seeing your point...
>