Greg Hudson <ghudson@MIT.EDU> writes:
> > The trick is to stop thinking of "replace_directory" as "I'm going
> > to make a change to this directory". Sometimes, it just means "I
> > need the baton for this directory, so I can change some children."
>
> No, no, I already have that.
>
> But let's say that I type "svn update foo/a/b foo/c/d foo/e" and there
> are no changes in foo/c/d (which the filesystem can trivially
> determine, because the node-revision of foo/c/d is the same in the
> base and target revisions). Will the resulting edit do replace_dir()
> calls on c and d just to convince the client to update its revision
> numbers under c/d?
>
> I also don't understand why it's extra work for the client to do the
> version bumping itself. It shouldn't have to keep track of "committed
> targets" (whatever those are in the context of an update); it just
> needs the list of non-overlapping targets. If I "svn update foo/c/d"
> and absolutely nothing has changed there, I still need to set the
> version number for every directory and file under foo/c/d.
Ouch, yeah, I understood what you meant after I sent my response.
Ouch.
OK, hold on, we're about to follow up with Plan #723... :)
Received on Sat Oct 21 14:36:21 2006