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

Re: solution to issue 704

From: Karl Fogel <kfogel_at_newton.ch.collab.net>
Date: 2002-05-19 22:17:59 CEST

Ben Collins-Sussman <sussman@collab.net> writes:
> Except that the open_* calls all require a 'base revision' argument,
> which we don't have. This argument is supposed to be a sanity-check
> for the editor -- to make sure that the driver and the editor both
> agree on what's being changed. Now granted, our libsvn_wc
> update-editor currently ignores the base-revision argument, but I just
> can't bring myself to passing INVALID_REVNUM to every open_* call. I
> mean, someday the update-editor may very well want to do sanity
> checking. I don't want to violate the editor interface by driving it
> badly.

Is this really so bad?

The editor interface just needs to document what `base_revision'
means, and what happens (or doesn't happen) if you pass

The real problem is that the current doc string is very vague, not
really saying anything concrete about base_revision. Maybe this is
part of why you're so reluctant to "violate" it -- one can't even tell
what is a violation and what's not! But if the interface were clear
about this, you wouldn't have to worry.

I say: decide & document what base_revision means, and make sure that
the definition allows you to do what you need to solve this particular
problem :-). It's silly for an optional sanity check to force us away
from a good solution...


To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sun May 19 22:20:24 2002

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.