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

Re: Change #2: Modify prototypes of replace_*() and add_*()

From: Karl Fogel <kfogel_at_galois.collab.net>
Date: 2001-01-22 23:41:06 CET

Greg Hudson <ghudson@MIT.EDU> writes:
> > Why we need a "target" revision:
> > When updating the WC, the RA layer needs to specify the new
> > version of the object being created.
> Isn't this a constant for a given update operation?

I also am confused (but possibly misremembering).

There's no doubt about base_revision being an argument to replace_*().
It's used to conveniently check that received data is still applicable
to the target entity. Although that check could be done entirely via
local bookkeeping, it's just simpler and more robust to have a
parameter to compare against.

As for the target_revision, there were two lines of thinking:

   1. It's a constant across the entire update, so just mention it at
      the beginning of the edit and don't make it a parameter to any
      of the replace_*() or add_*() functions.

   2. Do pass it to each replace_*() or add_*(), because although it's
      constant across the update right now, things might not always

Now, I actually had thought we agreed on #1. But Ben was taking notes
and I wasn't, and a *lot* of things were discussed. What does
everyone else recall from that discussion? Was there a good argument
against #1 or for #2?

Received on Sat Oct 21 14:36:19 2006

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

This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.