Re: The "follow copy history" initiative

On Wed, 2004-03-31 at 21:37, Branko Èibej wrote:
> I have a problem with this patch: it only looks in the _past_. That
> restriction is unnecessary (and evil :-), you should be able to peg
> /foo/bar/baz@100 and ask where it is at revision 200.

We discussed this in the earlier (pre-1.0) thread. Consensus was that
we can't trace into the future across renames of the file or its parent
directories (because all copies look the same, whether or not they were
renames, and even if there's only one copy of the same node in the
target rev, it's too hard to find given the current FS schema), but we
can check if <future-rev,path> is the same node-copy, and use that if
so.

It looks like Shlomi's code just returns the unmodified pathname if the
peg_revision is earlier than past_revision, but that's dangerous.

> I also don't like the name of the funciton, obviously, because it's not
> just about files. I suggest svn_fs_get_node_path.

I don't like the name either (it's too long and, as brane said, it
shouldn't be specific to files), but "svn_fs_get_node_path" sounds like
a simple FS operation. I don't immediately have a good suggestion.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Thu Apr 1 06:01:09 2004