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

Re: svn commit: rev 2637 - trunk/subversion/mod_dav_svn

From: Ben Collins-Sussman <sussman_at_collab.net>
Date: 2002-07-23 08:37:17 CEST

sussman@tigris.org writes:

> + case DAV_PROPID_getlastmodified:
> case DAV_PROPID_creationdate:
> {
> + /* In subversion terms, the date attached to a file's CR is
> + the true "last modified" time. However, we're defining
> + creationdate in the same way. IMO, the "creationdate" is
> + really the date attached to the revision in which the item
> + *first* came into existence; this would found by tracing
> + back through the log of the file -- probably via
> + svn_fs_revisions_changed. gstein, is it a bad thing that
> + we're currently using 'creationdate' to mean the same thing
> + as 'last modified date'? */

IIRC, the 'DAV:creationdate' property is being interpreted as the
'svn:wc:committed-date' entryprop in the client, which eventually ends
up being stored as the 'committed-date' attribute in the entry.

If you agree with what I'm saying in the comment above, I think that
*instead* we should be using 'DAV:getlastmodified' for this purpose.
It should be paired with the CR and last-author entryprops. ((And
'DAV:creationdate' should truly trace back through many revisions.)

Does anyone agree with me? See what I'm saying? This is a matter of
changing how we map DAV concepts to svn concepts.

To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Tue Jul 23 08:38:54 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.