Re: Objection to change in svn_depth_t component naming (r21067)

Karl Fogel wrote:
> Max Bowsher writes:
>> All-in-all, I'd much rather we stuck with the established DAV
>> standard, and ignored the LDAP terminology completely.
>
> Why would we assume that the DAV standard is more "established" than
> the LDAP one?

Sorry, I was unclear. I didn't mean to compare the two standards.
Rather, I was referring to the fact that we already had the code using
the DAV terminology prior to r21067.

> We happen to be unusually familiar with DAV, but that's
> probably just a local bias...

Yes, but these are developer-visible terms, are they not? So, falling in
line with local bias seems like a *good* thing.

> How about "fulltree", btw?

It doesn't address my complaints about "base" or "exact", whilst
simultaneously deviating confusingly from the LDAP standard.

Moreover, let me clarify my position: I am opposed to using various
'names' for certain patterns of depth, when (IMO) depth is a concept
best described in numerical terms - i.e. from my perspective, *any* set
of descriptive words is inferior to the DAV-style "zero", "one", "infinity".

Max.