Re: impending change #2...

So, if I may rephrase the problem, when the user types:

        svn update foo/a/b foo/c/d foo/e

the edit will start at "foo", but foo/a and foo/c should not have
their revision numbers bumped even though there is a
replace_directory() call for them.

(I don't suppose you guys would go for allowing
replace_directory("a/b").)

> I think this system is fundamentally better than the old idea --
> whereby the client is the thing that ultimately decides which items
> to bump after the update completes.

I disagree. It puts the editor driver in the position of needing to
replace a directory even if has no changes to report, just to bump the
wc's version number. Ugly.

Also, even if "whether to bump the target revision" is a parameter of
a particular replacement, the value of the target revision is a
parameter of the update as a whole. It seems confusing to respecify
that value for each call. Perhaps it would be too gooey to pass in
the value early on in the edit and then use a flag in each replace
saying whether to use it, but it still leaves me feeling like the
design is subtly wrong.
Received on Sat Oct 21 14:36:21 2006