[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: Date ordering of revisions [was: fsfs bug in commit timestamps?]

From: Alan Barrett <apb_at_cequrux.com>
Date: 2006-01-14 09:42:57 CET

On Sat, 14 Jan 2006, Julian Foad wrote:
> Would we be prepared to agree and document something like?:
>
> * "svn:date" represents the date at which this revision was committed to
> this repository, and thus must increase monotonically.
>
> * If "svn:date" properties are out of order, up until at least Subversion
> v1.3, the only thing that breaks is "-r{DATE}", and in v1.x everything that
> works in v1.3 will continue to work but new features that rely on date
> ordering may be introduced.
>
> * If you want to record the date at which, for example, the files were
> originally committed to some previous repository, and the complete set of
> such dates would not be ordered in the current repository, then record
> those dates in some other property, not "svn:date".

Could we have a looser requirement, like

* If "svn:date" properties are out of order when considering the
  repository as a whole, but you are performing a command that operates
  only on a subtree of the repository, and if "svn"date" properties
  are monotonically increasing over all revisions that affected that
  subtree, then "the right thing" happens.

For example, when using svk, it's very common for some subtrees to represent
mirrors of remote repositories, and for some subtrees to represent local
branches. Dates are properly ordered within each subtree, but are not
globally ordered.

--apb (Alan Barrett)

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sat Jan 14 09:46:18 2006

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.