Re: Thoughts and open questions on patch/dump unification

"Eric S. Raymond" <esr@snark.thyrsus.com> writes:

> These questions are independent of the action-diff format.
>
> First premise: a dumpfile is an action diff from an empty tree.

Yes.

> In the more general case, an action diff is intended to be applied
> to a nonempty tree.

Yes.

> An action diff is a list of changesets ("revisions" in current
> dumpfile terminology).

If "action diff" is the terminology we're using to talk about the
newfangled output from 'svn diff', then No. An action diff (by that
definition) is the single changeset that results from concatenating
many changesets.

> Attempting to apply an action diff to a repository produces an "action
> list" (a list of changesets to be applied to the repository) and an
> "exception list" (a list of what changesets cannot be applied).

Action diffs aren't applied to repositories. They are applied to
working copies.

> It is then a policy question whether the action list becomes a
> commit.

Nope.

And from here, it's obvious that you and I have such differing ideas
on what we're working on here that further response will only add
confusion. :-)

Maybe I missed some thread posts, but I thought we were talking about
a custom patch format for Subversion. Eric, you seem to be thinking
more about some sort of history replication mechanism which is far
more involved than just a patch format. Are we on differing planets?

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Thu Sep 16 17:30:52 2004