On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 02:18:34PM -0400, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
> >Folks, svn takes the '--depth' option to the other commands besides
> >'checkout' and 'update'. For example, 'svn add --depth=FOO NEWTREE'
> >means:
> >
> > "Add NEWTREE, but only include the parts of it reachable when
> > descending as far as depth FOO from the top."
> >
> >And that is how we behave right now. But the question is, once NEWTREE
> >is under version control, should it be at depth=FOO or depth=infinity?
> >
> >Right now, it's at depth=infinity. While that's useful in some cases, I
> >think it might be more consistent, and more in line with user
> >expectations, for it to be at depth=FOO.
>
> Adding NEWTREE at depth infinity makes sense.
>
> Adding NEWTREE at depth FOO does not necessarily makes sense in the general
> case of using --depth with 'svn add'.
>
> Perhaps there's a middle ground to consider seeking: Adding NEWTREE at
> depth (FOO - (depth from TARGET to FOO). Yes, in the case of 'svn add
> --depth=FOO NEWTREE', that's depth=FOO. But what about 'svn add --force
> --depth=immediates parent=of-NEWTREE' ? Seems in that case you want
> NEWTREE added at depth empty, since that's what left of a depth-immediates
> additive crawl of its parent directory (the actual target of the operation).
Well, in my original post I used the word "define". This is not a accurate and
formal definition. However, this covers your second example. You are actually
referring to depth-empty rather than depth-infinity, right? This is just how
the depth-immediates works.
The way that Karl described the behavior is concrete and direct, but not that
perfect and accurate. I just didn't aware of it. Thank you for figuring it out.
Anyway, you are not opposed to making --depth more consistent, right?
Rui, Guo
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help_at_subversion.tigris.org
Received on 2008-04-18 05:50:40 CEST