[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: Ancestry arguments for replace functions

From: Karl Fogel <kfogel_at_galois.collab.net>
Date: 2000-12-22 20:42:06 CET

Greg Stein <gstein@lyra.org> writes:
> Why is the ancestor_revision still necessary? Initially, we were saying that
> parameter only has meaning when ancestor_path is present. If you're saying
> it stays, then it also seems to imply that it has meaning outside of the
> presence of ancestor_path.

No, we still need the ancestor_path -- but it is now wholly implied,
through the enclosing parent dir.

We need the ancestory (hence the rev) because the server needs to know
what the diff is against, so it can construct the full text of the new

> I like my set_revision() and copyfrom_* naming better. Much clearer. I have
> no idea on the state/semantics of these ancestor_* things now. Especially if
> you toss one and not the other :-(

How does it feel after the above clarification?
Received on Sat Oct 21 14:36:18 2006

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.