On 10/19/07, Hyrum K. Wright <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> David Glasser wrote:
> > On 10/12/07, Karl Fogel <email@example.com> wrote:
> >> "David Glasser" <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> >>> Here's a patch implementing that for ra_svn. (Presumably, the same
> >>> patch for DAV will be harder because of the general lack of
> >>> capabilities.)
> >> As we were discussing in IRC: detecting capabilities will be easier
> >> after I commit my patch for issue #2959 (latest patch attached there
> >> for inspection).
> > Now that we have this, do people support adding a mergeinfo capability
> > and using this to (among other things) error out on log/blame -g?
> > I'm not sure what I feel about Mark's argument about wanting to
> > hardcode to the -g equivalent. Maybe the svn_client APIs could return
> > a boolean saying whether or not mergeinfo was actually used?
> My initial reaction was not to produce an error, but now I'm not so
> sure. If I run 'log -g' on an unknown server, I'll get different
> results, depending on whether that server is pre-1.5 or not. Producing
> different results dependent upon server version is Bad (at least in this
That is like saying running this command on a range of revisions with
no merges gives different results. It gives the information it has.
> I now feel that producing an error here isn't a problem. Clients can
> trap the error and take whatever action they feel appropriate, which may
> include informing the user, and reissuing the request. I suspect the
> command line client would just error out.
Spoken like a command line user. So do you think we should change all
GUI's to always just run svn log, then make you take a second option
to re-run it with the merge info included? Or should we remember that
is what you wanted, and instead let the tool generate errors and force
you to turn the feature off? Or always run the command, get an error,
dynamically change the setting and try again? This would be a good
> Using our capability mechanism would be the cleanest way to implement
> this, IMHO.
Someone explain to me why our current --depth feature is acceptable
then? We are really assuming that people's main concern is not having
extra files locally as opposed to not transferring them over the wire
in the first place? Because I'd be using the feature for the latter.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: email@example.com
For additional commands, e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
Received on Fri Oct 19 19:57:25 2007