> 2) we only update version resource URLs for the things that change. since we
> must update version resource URLs and revision numbers in tandem, this
> means that we do not update revision numbers for the things that don't
> change. the side effect is that we now get a scattering of revision
> numbers in the WC, generating a large client-state report during an
> "update" process.
But the client-state report is not driven by the version URL; it's
driven by the version numbers in the wc's entries files. (And we
*were* planning to update all of those, since libsvn_wc can do that
without a large report from the server, and since we have to make a
pass over the working directory anyway. Although I have some concerns
about file churn and backup volume, personally.)
> My initial query was whether this would work within the FS. Nobody
> is considering that, but whether it is "right" or not.
Well, Jim may be the only person qualified to answer that question at
the moment, and I think he's away right now.
> because they would like to make their server SVN-compatible (e.g.
> our client would operate against their server, too).
Totally irrelevant nit: "e.g." (exempli gratia) means "for example".
"i.e" (id est) means "that is".
Received on Sat Oct 21 14:36:18 2006