Re: Semantics of --depth: should define WC-depth for omitted-items?

"Rui, Guo" <timmyguo_at_mail.ustc.edu.cn> writes:
> Agree. There is no obvious best choice to satisfy all here. Both choice are
> reasonable from its standpoint and inevitably have some shortcoming. We can
> choose to accept current behavior and document the divergence, or to maintain
> the consistency by modifying the current behavior.
>
> It's the decision itselfthat most important. Both choice are acceptable to me.
> Though I personally prefer the consistency a little, slightly...

I think I do too -- that is, the operational depth becomes the "set"
depth for added trees. Would you like to try writing the patch?

-Karl

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help_at_subversion.tigris.org
Received on 2008-04-22 07:14:24 CEST