Re: The "follow copy history" initiative

On Thu, 2004-04-01 at 13:16, Greg Hudson wrote:

> I'm saying we should do the optimistic-future-searching thing mentioned
> in (1) above, when presented with a future operative revision. How are
> we miscommunicating?

Ah, I understand now. Let's do a checksum here. I'll spell everything
out.

** At the moment, if I run 'svn subcommand -rFUTURE foo.c', I may get
one of two answers back:

   1. "path not found in rFUTURE."

   2. a successful reply, though the future thing sitting in foo.c's
path may be totally unrelated.

** In your proposal, we'd get back one of

   1. "path not found in rFUTURE."

   2. "path found in rFUTURE, but is unrelated to foo.c".
 
   3. a successful reply (assuming the same object is in the same place
in rFUTURE.)

** And in some ideal future, we'd get back one of

   1. "object doesn't exist by any name in rFUTURE."

   2. "object exists at N different locations in rFUTURE, please try
again using one of these URLs:"

   3. a successful reply, assuming the object exists in only one place
in rFUTURE.

All good?

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Thu Apr 1 22:22:22 2004