Philip Martin <philip@codematters.co.uk> writes:
> cmpilato@collab.net writes:
>
> > Philip Martin <philip@codematters.co.uk> writes:
> >
> > > I agree it could be solved there, but solving it on the client side
> > > means that every client has to be aware of the problem and has to find
> > > a solution.
> >
> > Well, yes, but that's why we have a librarized implementation. These
> > changes all live in libsvn_wc -- I dunno anybody crazy enough to write
> > their own libsvn_wc library.
>
> We have more than one implementation. I think switch shares the
> update implementation, but consider
>
> 'svn diff -rX'
>
> where there is a missing item in the working copy that has been
> deleted in revision X. Do we need to modify the diff client to handle
> this case? (Do we even know what it should do? I think the diff
> command should indicate the deletion, but it would not surprise me if
> other people thought differently.)
>
> Then there is 'svn status -u', do we need to modify that client as
> well?
Ok ok ok. Let's normalize our terminology. You're using "client" to
mean "any old chunk of code that deals with the update response" where
I mean "a program that communicates interestingly with a Subversion
repository". I like my terminology better, so pbbbbbt. :-P
Yes, we might have various places in our client where we need to be
aware of this stuff, but so what?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Tue May 6 17:56:54 2003