Re: Proposal for $Revision$ keyword amendment

Greg Hudson wrote:
> 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.

I think that once someone implements such a keyword, that is _exactly_
what at least some users will expect. It's hard enough to convince
people that keywords are bound to files, and hence only get updated when
that file gets updated. Once you give them access to a global status
keyword, the inevitable next question is "Why can't I get that file
updated automatically in all files that have it?"

All you have to do is look at the number of questions on the users list
about why $Revision$ doesn't get globally updated (since many people
initially believe that to be the repository rev not the file rev). It's
really the same reason why svnversion exists in the first place.

I'm not saying this feature couldn't be added, I'm just saying that
slope looks kind of slick to me... ;-)

John

-- 
John Peacock
Director of Information Research and Technology
Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group
4501 Forbes Boulevard
Suite H
Lanham, MD  20706
301-459-3366 x.5010
fax 301-429-5748
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org