Re: issue #1648: depth indicator in internal API

Greg Hudson <ghudson@MIT.EDU> writes:

> If we're not going to implement such a feature at all, then sure,
> let's punt. If there are any ardent supports of --depth, they should
> speak up as soon as possible.

I don't count myself as an ardent supporter -- our recursive behavior
as it exists today has never gotten in my way. It's mildly annoying
that commit's use of non-recursive is the only place in our codebase
where that means depth=0 (everything else is depth=1). And I
certainly can see merit in the ternery depth state. But do these
necessitate immediately improvement? I doubt it.

> On the other hand, if we do anticipate adding this feature, I think
> replacing the boolean with an enum is pretty trivial, and pretty
> obviously a key step in the right direction. It could be a
> two-element enum for now, so we wouldn't be specifying any
> unimplemented behavior.

This is wise.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Tue Dec 23 04:05:50 2003