C. Michael Pilato wrote:
> David Glasser wrote:
>> This also raises an interesting question:
>>
>> UI-wise, one of the reasons that we didn't implement "depth shrinking"
>> was that it just fundamentally didn't work with "svn up --depth".
>> However, given "--new-depth" or "--set-depth", the UI for "depth
>> shrinking" is obvious. So should we support it in 1.5? Note that
>> this is non-trivial; we have to figure out what we do with the files
>> on disk (delete them? leave them there in '?' mode?), if local mods
>> affects it, etc.
>>
>> My vote: depth shrinking is definitely not a branch blocker and
>> probably not a release blocker. If somebody happens to implement it
>> in a solid way that addresses the above concerns well, then no
>> complaints here, but it shouldn't be a short-term goal.
>>
>> --dave
>
> In fact, this lack of support for ambient depth reduction was one of
> the reasons I wanted to have both a --depth and a --new-depth for 'svn
> update'. How surprising it would be for a user who has finally gotten
> the hang of using 'svn update --depth' instead of 'svn update
> --non-recursive' to upgrade from 1.5 to 1.6 and find that suddenly his
> shallow updates aren't just operational scope limitations -- they
> start throwing away parts of his working copy!
>
> Implied in my previous paragraph is the timeline in which I expect to
> see depth shallowing implemented: post-1.5. And I'm totally cool with
> that. In fact, this change makes it much easier to raise a meaningful
> not-supported error where such a depth reduction is requested.
>
> -- C-Mike
>
> PS: I like --set-depth better, too, and will make the change.
Just trying to understand what would happen in a partially-checked-out
working copy; say we checked out with --depth=3, making that sticky. If
we introduce a --set-depth option for update, then on such a working
copy, I'd expect "svn up --depth=4" and "svn up --set-depth=4" do behave
differently -- the first would effectively ignore the depth param and
not add new items, the second would change the sticky depth. In other
words, one would use --set-depth for both depth reduction and depth
extension.
Is that right?
-- Brane
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help_at_subversion.tigris.org
Received on 2008-01-14 23:46:56 CET