Re: svn commit: rev 624 - trunk/notes trunk/subversion/include trunk/subversion/libsvn_wc trunk/subversion/libsvn_ra_local trunk/subversion/libsvn_client trunk/subversion/mod_dav_svn trunk/subversion/clients/cmdline trunk/subversion/tests trunk/subversion/tests/libsvn_repos trunk/subversion/libsvn_repos trunk/subversion/libsvn_delta trunk/subversion/libsvn_ra_dav

I don't see anything about adding a revision to delete_entry() in any of the
three issues that I'm looked at.

Adding it doesn't bother me... but what *does* bother me is that we ruled
against it once before for *some* reason. Why? What are we forgetting?

Cheers,
-g

On Mon, Dec 10, 2001 at 12:25:40AM -0600, Karl Fogel wrote:
> The reasoning is all detailed in the issue, I'm pretty sure (don't
> have the issue number handy, but it's the one about the commit system
> rewrite).
>
> Which I guess is an implicit reminder to everyone to put the issue
> number in the log message, even for big, feature-add issues like this
> one that are associated with many commits.
>
> -K
>
> Greg Stein <gstein@lyra.org> writes:
> > > (svn_delta_edit_fns_t): 'delete_entry' now takes a revision argument
> > > for sanity checking. This is a pre-requisite of the new commit
> > > system.
> >
> > I suggested this a year ago at the Chicago SVN meeting. But we explicitly
> > decided not to add the revision. I don't recall exactly why, only that we
> > nixed it.
> >
> > So: do we truly want to add this? What was the previous rationale for not
> > including the revision on the delete_entry() function?
> >
> > Cheers,
> > -g

-- 
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org