Garrett Rooney wrote:
> On 11/16/05, Branko Čibej <brane@xbc.nu> wrote:
>
>
>> I still don't see what the difference is, semantically, between "replay
>> revision BAR" and "update from / at BAR-1 to / at BAR". I understand
>> that the exact datasets that are sent back today are different, but I
>> still think that replay can be seen as simply a special case of update.
>>
>
> I agree that it seems tempting to say "why can't we express this all
> in terms of one API", but as clkao and ghudson point out, there are
> complicated issues that would need to be resolved with regard to what
> the behavior would be in many common cases. The fact that diff and
> update need to work for multiple revision ranges introduces a number
> of problems that a simple replay API just doesn't have to care about.
>
>
>> The cost of actually changing update in such a way that it can be used
>> to replace replay might be large, perhaps too large to bother at this
>> point. But in the long run, I think it would make sense to at least
>> investigate the possibility.
>>
>
> Now that I've spent some time looking at the reporter code and
> thinking about how I would add support for replay-like output, I'm
> pretty much totally convinced that it will be both complex to
> implement even the simple cases and difficult to determine what the
> correct behavior should be in the nontrivial cases, which will, of
> course, be even harder to implement.
>
Fair enough.
What about the DAV report format itself? Do we need a new report, or can
we reuse an existing one?
-- Brane
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Wed Nov 16 19:34:39 2005