Hyrum K. Wright wrote:
> Julian Foad wrote:
>> On Thu, 2008-09-11 at 11:38 -0500, Hyrum K. Wright wrote:
>>> Julian Foad wrote:
>>>> this is going to sound inconsiderate after I've just reviewed the
>>>> implementation, but I've just been thinking back to why we're doing
>>>> this, and I am still not convinced that this is not over-generalising.
>>>> At the UI level, I have no evidence that we need a general
>>>> "--ignore-prop" feature, and, although we could commit this for
>>>> experimentation, I would not like to see it in a released version
>>>> without knowing it's valuable enough to justify its existence. (If it is
>>>> valuable, then it seems likely that the converse feature for noticing
>>>> ONLY certain properties would be needed too.)
>>>> At the libsvn_client level, exactly the same applies.
>>> To a large degree, this set of features is solving a personal itch. In working
>>> with the 1.5.x branch, the mergeinfo modifications are largely noise in 'svn st'
>>> and 'svn diff', and I can't find the revisions I'm looking for using 'svn log'.
>>> That's what's motivating me to add this. I (currently) don't have any need for
>>> the converse, so I haven't thought much about those use cases.
>>> As for the generality, I can imagine, though I don't know of any personally,
>>> circumstances where projects use custom properties on files for some purpose,
>>> use like we use properties for mergeinfo. Why *not* provide the ability for
>>> users to filter arbitrary properties, especially since it doesn't require any
>>> additional work in the implementation?
>> Why not? Only reasons like: If there's no real gain (which isn't yet
>> known), then the growth in out API and UI and implementation would be
>> just a drain. If this is to be a real feature, it needs to be "complete"
>> like, I suggest, having the converse operation of "show only properties
>> P1, P2, ...". If this is to be frequently used for ignoring mergeinfo,
>> there ought to be an easier-to-type command than "svn st
>> --ignore-prop=svn:mergeinfo ...". We need to consider whether to provide
>> a corresponding configuration option.
>> None of these are showstoppers, but they need considering.
>>> I feel strongly that the implementation should be generic, since we using the
>>> generic property mechanism for storing mergeinfo.
>> Well, the project has a bit of an uncertain viewpoint on that. We don't
>> give users a choice about what property we store it in, so they don't
>> need a choice about what property to ignore its changes in. We do
>> special things with that property, yet in many ways it is one of the
>> "generic" properties.
>>> Just so I make sure I can
>>> understand correctly, are you concerned about exposing that generality through
>>> the API? (e.g., using 'apr_hash_t *ignored_props', instead of 'svn_boolean_t
>> Yes, in the sense that I'm primarily concerned about exposing it (in the
>> UI and API). I would be much happier if that same functionality were to
>> live privately inside one library, perhaps only being exercised via a
>> boolean API switch that asks it to ignore the mergeinfo property.
> I'm starting to come around on this (thanks for the patience!) Any suggestions
> for a switch name? '--ignore-mergeinfo'?
r33046 on the branch implements this.
Received on 2008-09-12 23:32:46 CEST