Hello Erik!
We seem to have the same opinion about most of the intended behaviour - so
there's not much to argue left. In fact, I'd just like to
On Thursday 26 October 2006 23:01, Erik Huelsmann wrote:
> On 10/9/06, Ph. Marek <philipp.marek@bmlv.gv.at> wrote:
> > On Monday 09 October 2006 00:03, Erik Huelsmann wrote:
> > > Both Julian Foad and Philip Marek point out that copy and move aren't
> > > so similar, so, I decided to split this one up in Copy and Move.
> > >
> > > Copy
> > > Copy does not maintain the old value of the MTIME_RECORD: as soon as
> > > the copy is committed (or it is a wc->repos copy), a new value (the
> > > time of the copy) is stored in the MTIME_RECORD.
> > To this I said:
> > | And because it's stored as a property, it would have to be hard-coded
> > | to get deleted on copy.
> All of the current behaviours would have to be hard-coded. Even if the
> copy operation itself keeps the mtime property, committing the file
> would result in the commit taking the current time to be the mtime to
> assign, since that's how it currently proposed to be implemented: so,
> there'd be a hardcoded rule to exclude copies for that behaviour - not
> on copy, but at commit time.
What I meant here is, that *some* (if not all) behaviours naturally "fall out"
of using a property.
See the points below: REPOS->REPOS copies have some defined semantics now.
If we'd change such copies to change the mtime property to the current time
it's not what users expect.
(And such special-cases are what I meant with having to be hard-coded)
Although that discussion seems to be just a misunderstanding of the broad
meaning of "copying", as we're seeing below in the various detail-discussions
(R->R, R->WC, WC->R, WC->WC).
> > REPOS -> WC: should use the stored mtime, or (if none defined) use
> > current time.
> This is effectively a checkout, so it should use the current mtime for
> the property value, but since it is a copy, that will be overruled at
> commit time with the current time.
So a checkout of some item uses current time, but a REPOS->WC copy doesn't?
That's some strange behaviour IMO ...
If some item has a stored mtime, we should use it when possible.
Or it is possible that I'm just a bit dumb here again and don't understand
your words.
Regards,
Phil
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Fri Oct 27 12:04:32 2006