> And yah... "theoretical" configurations could certainly want to
> refer to an individual file, but ... blarg. Theoretical.
We might even have a desire to support per-version configurations.
Say we wanted our own branch of APR, without bothering the people who
maintain the APR repository. Files and directories we've modified in
the apr-subversion hierarchy would have a normal node for the head
revision, but when you ascend the ancestor chain far enough you get a
configuration node pointing into the apr repository.
Yeah, this sounds really confusing at the implementation level, but at
the UI level I think it just translates into capability were you'd
normally expect it. Consider what happens when you have a regular
directory configuration node for "apr" in the subversion repository
and someone tries to branch it--if all we have is per-directory or
per-dirent configurations, we'll have to fail out.
(Incidentally, I'm not totally sold on the term "configuration." I
don't think it's very intuitive. But I don't have a better term and
Branko has been using it that way and the term seems to have some
prior acceptance, so I'll use it in conversation for now.)
Received on Sat Oct 21 14:36:16 2006