On Mar 24, 2005, at 10:24 PM, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
> I questioned not that 'svn info' reported this
> information -- I questioned that it reported the info as something
> that was reliable or unquestionable.
>
> Soothing my specific concerns might be as simply as 'svn info' making
> clear (preferably in its output, but I suppose its usage message would
> be okay) that the information it reports about working copy paths is
> limited in scope to what the working copy knows at the time, and that
> is very possible that the information could be stale (and therefore
> unreliable).
What if 'info' reported some of the data with something akin to "as of
{date}" to tell users exactly when the WC knew it was true (by
contacting the repository) and the user can decide *how likely* that
information is to be stale? If that date is three months ago (or maybe
just three hours ago), well, maybe the lock info is stale, but the
author and last-committed date probably aren't. Then again, maybe in
some environments, authors and last-committed dates are changed all the
time. I think such a date would be much more useful in practice than a
big static disclaimer (like lawyers force stuck to email messages and
we all love to hate for good reasons).
Personally, I'm glad that author and last-committed are cached for
off-line use. They rarely (approaching never) change in many, if not
most, environments I would guess.
-Travis Pouarz
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Fri Mar 25 05:52:53 2005