Martin Furter wrote:
> On Wed, 31 Jan 2007, Daniel Berlin wrote:
>> On 1/31/07, Michael Haggerty <mhagger@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>>> This discussion reminded me again that the text-base part of a working
>>> copy resembles an incomplete, read-only svn repository. Perhaps both
>>> could be accessed via a common API?
>>
>> This is actually what i suggested during the summit, that the WC
>> become just another repository .
>> People seemed generally okay with the idea.
>> That said, if David doesn't want to tackle this, i don't blame him.
>
> Wouldn't each working copy then have the same size as the repository?
> Or will obliterate be implemented in the repos layer to be able to
> shrink the wc to a reasonable size?
IMO the first step would be to wrap repository access methods around the
current text-base functionality. Then people can add other text-base
functionality (for example full history or no text-base at all) whenever
the spirit moves them.
I do *not* think that we should require every WC to contain a complete
project history. (Though it would certainly be nice to offer it as an
option someday...)
Michael
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Thu Feb 1 18:52:43 2007