On 11/15/05, Branko ╚ibej <email@example.com> wrote:
> The real question here is, why do we need a new API at all? Can't we
> simply add copyfrom info to ra_update? And wouldn't doing that magically
> make svn_repos_update and svn_repos_replay identical (for a certain
> combination of parameters)? Making the API smaller is a good thing.
That's exactly where I was going. The information Garrett wants
should certainly be available, and of course we need to avoid
transmitting or recovering information when it's expensive if we're
just going to throw it away at the other end, but it doesn't follow
that we should make the same data look like four or five different
sorts of requests.
(I think it's odd the way URL vs. URL comparisons use a reporter,
which is allegedly for describing working copies, to specify the
'from' tree, but I guess that's just expressing the simple case in
terms of the harder case, which makes sense.)
So we could have a function that takes an editor and a 'to' URL, and
provides a reporter (like diff2), but also takes a bitmask indicating
what sorts of information that editor is interested in: text deltas;
property deltas; copyfrom info; ... anything else? The goal would be
to re-implement all the existing calls sending deltas from repo to
client in terms of this one call.
Received on Wed Nov 16 03:53:32 2005