Re: Thoughts and open questions on patch/dump unification

C. Michael Pilato <cmpilato@collab.net>:
> Action diffs aren't applied to repositories. They are applied to
> working copies.

Aha! That's a defensible assumption, but it's not the one I was making.

> 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?

We were. Let's see if we can get back on the same one.

I'm thinking of repo sync as a transaction between repositories that
adds to the the target repository's history, possibly merging in more than
one revision. This is consistent with the first premise: a dumpfile
adds to the history of an empty repository. When you do that, you
don't only get one commit for the whole dumpfile, you get one for each
revision in the dump.

Your view, which is that action diffs apply to working copies, has
several problems. One is that an action diff and a file dump are now
two different things with different semantics -- one hacks the repository,
one the working copy. Another is that you have no good way to handle
log text in the action diff. If an action diff only changes the working
copy, where does the log text go?

-- 
		Eric S. Raymond
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org