On Tue, 2005-10-04 at 14:01 +0200, Molle Bestefich wrote:
> I was thinking that svn commit should also expand $UpdateRev$,
> consistent with what's currently done. Consider however the case
> where svn commit is executed on a whole directory. File ABC has
> changed, file XYZ contains the $UpdateRev$ keyword. The user will
> only be presented with the file that has changes, but to be consistent
> with 'svn update', we might want to expand the keywords in the
> non-changed file, since the 'commit' action was performed on the
> folder containing both items.
Because of our server-side auto-merging system, "commit" has to result
in a mixed-rev working copy. The $UpdateRev$ of an unchanged file still
needs to reflect the old, pre-commit version, because that file has not
been updated to the new revision. Remember that such a file may have
changed in the repository as part of an intervening commit.
There is a certain style of workflow which would be better served by a
system which has no auto-merge and which does not create mixed-revision
working copies on commit (every commit updates the current revision by
1, and the working copy knows exactly what is in that revision after a
commit), but Subversion does not operate in that mode.
John Peacock wrote:
> I'm not sure how many other ways I can say this: Subversion has no
> way to permit updating keywords in otherwise unchanged files.
You're oversimplifying. $UpdateRev$ would require additional machinery
to implement, but it would not imply any tremendous architectural or
performance issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Tue Oct 4 19:31:04 2005