Julian Foad wrote:
> [...]
Julian, thank you very much for taking the
time to write an altogether brilliant review.
>> a.) Be restricted to checking revisions in the current WC folder,
>
> Please clarify what exact behaviour you mean by (a).
At the time, I was under the assumption that a WC tree walk
was unavoidable. (Greg has since shown that that is not
necessarily the case.)
Point a.) was merely:
1. An attempt to minimize a tree walk by saying that "related
source code are usually located in the same WC folder, therefore
it's just necessary to check files in the folders where
[some other] files exist that has the $xxxRev$ keyword".
2. An attempt to avoid having to define what "in the current WC"
and all that means, by simply stating that only files in the
same folder as 'co/up' target files with $...Rev$ in it
should be considered for expansion, and $...Rev$ should be
expanded to reflect that folder's status only.
Hope it makes slightly more sense.
> Fortunately your [Greg's] simpler vision of an "UpdateRev" keyword
> avoids this, so hopefully we don't need to pursue the "whole WC"
> vision further.
Right. Agreed.
John Peacock wrote:
> I'm still (possibly foolishly) operating under the assumption that
> the OP wants the 'WC revision' not some single 'file revision',
> which is not available after the entire WC has been walked.
1] "The WC revision is not available [until] after the entire ..." or
2] "The file revision is not available after the entire ..."?
John, if you could cut down on the number of commas, I'd really appreciate it.
(I do apologize that my english skills are hmm, not top notch.)
I'll try to answer you, assuming 1] above:
Definitely not foolishly. The initial proposal is vague
and overly abstract. I also made some statements over multiple
paragraphs, which should have been joint. Bad writer..
And then there's the fact that I've gained knowledge and changed my
stance over the course of the discussion. More than once :-).
If it's ok with you, I'll just sum up my new view on things in
a new thread, and we'll take it from there.
John Peacock wrote:
> What I was suggesting was that, during normal [recursive] update processing,
> the entries file be consulted for the presence of the 'dirty-keywords' entry
> and a flag set. If and only if that flag was set, would an additional loop
> be required to expand the special keywords.
FYI, I've saved your and Greg's implementation notes,
but can't comment on them before I've looked at the code ;-).
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Thu Oct 13 02:37:33 2005