Julian Foad wrote:
> Branko Čibej wrote:
>
>> If we added an extra date->revision index, this
>> ordering wouldn't be necessary any more and we wouldn't need
>> svn:original-date.
>
>
> So svn:date would no longer mean "date of this revision" in the
> context of an SVN (as opposed to CVS) revision. I cannot see clearly
> whether this change to the semantics of svn:date is safe.
>
> For instance, assume a combination of regular SVN commits and
> back-dated CVS2SVN commits resulted in this history:
>
> r2 10 Jan Added foo.c
> r3 8 Jan Added bar.c
>
> Then I request:
>
> svn co --revision {"9 Jan"}
>
> Which file(s) will it check out? Which should it check out? This
> obviously isn't intended as a multiple-choice question, but a policy
> decision.
>
> I have no reason to uphold the requirement for svn:date to increase
> monotonically, except that I feel there may BE a good reason for it
> already.
Commits would be ordered by date *whithin a single branch* (remember,
this problem crops up with cvs2svn, not within SVN itself). What we'd
like to do is make it possible to commit a branch after having committed
the mainline (or, in the svnadmin load case, load older revisions into a
parallel tree). So your example would become:
r2 10 Jan Added /branches/foo/foo.c
r3 8 Jan Added /branches/bar/bar.c
And that's entirely acceptable, IMHO.
--
Brane Čibej <brane_at_xbc.nu> http://www.xbc.nu/brane/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Thu Mar 20 21:56:49 2003