kfogel@collab.net wrote:
> Philip Martin <philip@codematters.co.uk> writes:
>
>>>This seems to be saying you agree with my proposal to deprecate, then.
>>
>>It might be a little premature, Subversion itself is still using the
>>non-depth interface.
>
>
> The 'depth' parameter introduced in svn_wc_adm_*_depth doesn't really
> correspond to the '--depth' option we've talked about in the past.
> Maybe that's an argument for renaming the parameter... Or a parameter
> for renaming the argument?
>
> Excuse me, I get carried away sometimes.
>
> Anyway, I think that despite both using the word "depth", these two
> things aren't really tied to each other. From svn_wc.h:
>
[snip]
But it's at least somewhat related since it's a pre-requisite to the
--depth option, isn't it? (At least for working copy operations, though
not for direct repo operations.)
For example, in order to do an arbitrary depth 'svn status' or 'svn
commit' or 'svn update' all these commands need a way to do get an
arbitrary depth 'lock' on the working copy which is what these new
functions can do.
Or am I misunderstanding you, and you are saying they are not really
required since you can just take out a whole tree lock and then just
work on the depth you care about? While true, that has some performance
problems which is why this patch was submitted. Or perhaps I'm just
completely missing the point?
As far as converting Subversion to use these new functions so they can
be truly 'deprecated', I am willing to do that and submit a patch -- it
should be quite straightforward as far as I can see.
DJ
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Tue Mar 9 00:39:46 2004