[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: Proposal for $Revision$ keyword amendment

From: Greg Hudson <ghudson_at_MIT.EDU>
Date: 2005-09-30 19:31:25 CEST

On Fri, 2005-09-30 at 13:25 -0400, John Peacock wrote:
> Greg Hudson wrote:
> > I don't think we'd have to. We'd have to rewrite a file when (1) we're
> > bumping their revision numbers at the end of an update, and (2) the
> > entry indicates that the file has an svn:keywords property containing
> > $GlobalRev$ or whatever. (Similarly, to fix the "svn switch" keywords
> > bug, we'd have to rewrite each file whose entry indicates that the file
> > has an svn:keywords property containing any keyword which lists the
> > file's URL or FS path.)
> But I think that Max is correct in stating that this operation would
> have to walk the entire WC, even if it was only checking the entries
> file in each directory.

No. We'd only rewrite the file when we were already bumping its wc
revision number.

So, "svn update onefile" would do no additional work. "svn update"
would do additional checking during the recursion it *already does* in
order to bump the wc rev of each file in the working copy.

Max was operating on the assumption that "svn update onefile" would have
to do additional work because he was imagining a keyword whose value
reflected the state of the entire wc at all times. I don't think users
are asking for that level of assurance.

To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Fri Sep 30 19:32:14 2005

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.