On Thu, 2003-12-25 at 23:49, kfogel@collab.net wrote:
> Greg Hudson, who originally suggested this in
>
> http://subversion.tigris.org/servlets/ReadMsg?list=dev&msgNo=52297
>
> ...may have had something much simpler in mind than what I'm recoiling
> from above. Greg, if so, please describe.
Well, I initially only noticed the issue in the svn_ra interface, but
I'm not surprised that it's more widespread. Had I thought about it, I
suppose I wouldn't have claimed that it would be a trivial change to
make now.
I agree that it would be a fair amount of work to change this for 1.0.
But I observe that:
* It would still be essentially a rename operation, with little
potential for destabilization. I don't think it's "too big" of a
change for 1.0, any more than fixing a bunch of error message is too
big of a change.
(The one wart with that claim is that right now, as I understand
things, non-recursive commit is depth 0, while non-recursive
everything else is depth 1. So we would either have to change
non-recursive commit to be depth 1, or we have to make the recursion
parameter a three-element enum instead of a two-element enum, which
means we have to add assertions or exceptions for the case where we
get the unsupported value.)
* The harder it would be to make the change now, the more awful it
would be to make the change in an API-preserving matter later.
As I've said before, I'm okay with deciding to punt this change on the
basis that we're likely to never implement --depth (gstein's
rationale). I'm not so okay with deciding to punt this change because
we think we will implement --depth but that it would be better to work
around the current API than it would be to fix it while we have the
chance.
So far no one has stood up in strong defense of --depth. Once again,
this is your big chance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Fri Dec 26 06:57:59 2003