Re: Ev2 -- Driving Order Restrictions
From: Julian Foad <julianfoad_at_btopenworld.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2012 18:20:47 +0100 (BST)
Greg Stein wrote:
> Yes. The add_* is too narrow.
OK. In that case, 'replace' and 'rotate' are superfluous in this rule as they don't change the existence of a node at a given path. The rule should be:
If any path is added or removed (with add_*, delete, copy
Or we could shorten that to:
If the target/eventual set of children of a directory
svn_editor_alter_directory() call must be made for the
directory, specifying the target/eventual set of children.
Rotate can't create a node at a given path where there wasn't a node before, so there needs to be an add or copy-here or move-here.
>> * follow for each child mentioned in the @a children argument of any
>> * mentioned in the @a children parameter of the parent's creation.
Are you saying, if the child is created by
But wait-a-sec. We can simply delete this rule, because it is already redundant with the first rule which already says that if a new child is to be added in any way then the new list of children must have been provided in a 'children' argument, period.
>> + * ### JAF: Also for each new child of any alter_directory() call?
A question about delete. If a path is deleted and not replaced, then the new list of children for the parent directory must have been provided (first rule). But conversely, if a path is removed from a directory by alter_directory's 'children' parameter, then must there necessarily be a delete or move-away for that child?
 'move-here' or 'copy-here' meaning a move or copy where 'this' path is the target.
This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.