On Wed, Dec 20, 2000 at 02:05:57PM -0600, Karl Fogel wrote:
> Greg Stein <email@example.com> writes:
> But in general, it shouldn't matter to you what the files look like.
> Your interface is programmatic, function-based not file-based.
Agreed. I was simply digging in because I wasn't able to NULL as the
ancestor_path. So I wanted to see what was happening :-)
> > This goes back to whether ancestor_path / ancestor_revision should be passed
> > during a checkout. I think "no" (but I have to set them today, or the WC
> > chokes during the checkout). The path is built from NAME, and the revision
> > should be passed thru something like a set_revision() editor callback.
> Huh? I don't see how it goes back to that.
[Part of] the problem would be solved if I didn't have to pass
ancestor_path. The WC would simply be constructing the associated URL by
composing the NAME parameters. Right now, we're getting confused about the
meaing and usage of ancestor_path. Some of my other emails were an attempt
to clarify the true purpose/meaning/usage of that parameter. (I'd like to
call it copyfrom_path and copyfrom_revision to signify and limit its
> There are now so many issues flying around that I am officially lost.
> See you tomorrow. :-)
Have a good night!
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
Received on Sat Oct 21 14:36:17 2006