kfogel@collab.net wrote:
>
> Any time I hear about .svn directories storing Just One More piece of
> information, a bell goes off in my head: "Okay, but is it versioned,
> and if so, how will we make sure it gets outdate/updated correctly?"
>
> In this case, the property itself is a regular versioned property set
> on a directory. By asking descendant WCs to cache this property in a
> special, non-versioned way, we're essentially implementing inherited
> properties, but cheaply and with uncertain semantics :-).
You're right, of course. I definitely should not have included the
caching as part of the core proposal. As Jim mentions, since this
feature would only ever be useful when online, the caching may not even
be necessary at all.
The reason I did mention it, rather than just append "Inherited
properties would make this faster", was that this feature would require
something that I've never seen in an inherited properties proposal
before; we need to know where the property is inherited from, not just
its value.
In fact, in my original proposal, we didn't even care about the value,
just where it was set. I do, however, like Jim's suggestion to put a
sub-path in the treeroot value to handle partial-tree branches.
- Marc
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sun Nov 13 14:15:19 2005