At 10:41 PM -0400 8/25/03, Francois Beausoleil wrote:
>In our case, I would like to commit the dirA, which contains a
>modification to fileB. Had I also set a property on dirA, I would have
>expected the commit to send the propchange *and* fileB. Strictly
>speaking as a user here ;)
Well "a modification to fileB" is, it seems to me, clearly one level
deeper than "a property on dirA". It's not contained in dirA, it's
contained in dirB (which is contained in dirA). They oughtn't ever
to show up in the same non-recursive commit. A commit that includes
"the changes to the things in dirA, but no deeper" is a "one-level
recursive commit." Not to say it's not useful, just that it's a
different thing. This much of the conversation has been had before,
I think; at its heart, isn't it inspired by the fact that CVS does
this? But CVS doesn't entirely believe in directories (you have to
add them, but you never commit their adds or changes); it's a false
analogy.
But in SVN, the creation of fileB (in dirA) is an event on dirA as
well as on fileB (in any given revision, dirA does or does not
contain fileB, quite irrespective of what contents fileB may or may
not have). I would expect a non-recursive commit of dirA to include
the new propval on dirA, and the fact that there's now a fileB within
dirA, but not the new contents of dirB (zero-length file, I suppose,
or empty directory for the case where you've added a subdirectory).
I think that makes sense. Doesn't it? I think I'm arguing from
first principals and "say what's true." I don't think my judgement's
being swayed by the fact that that's how ClearCase handles this....
--
-==-
Jack Repenning
CollabNet, Inc.
8000 Marina Boulevard, Suite 600
Brisbane, California 94005
o: 650.228.2562
c: 408.835-8090
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Tue Aug 26 04:55:26 2003