Peter Samuelson wrote:
> [Julian Foad]
>
>>Finally, but importantly, why are we only talking about contracting
>>keywords?
>
> We're talking about any change to the svn:keywords property - both
> adding and removing keywords.
The original post on the Subversion dev list did not mention adding, but it's
good that we are talking about it now.
> For the add case, libsvn_wc already does
> the right thing and expands keywords in the WC (though at commit time,
> not at propset/propedit time). Doing it at propset/propedit time is
> probably not worthwhile, since (at least for $Id$) the string will
> change at commit time anyway.
>
>
>>Surely, if we expect 'svn' to contract a keyword when we remove its
>>name from the property, we should also expect it to expand it when we
>>insert its name in the property.
>
> Doesn't that happen today? Or do you mean doing it immediately rather
> than deferring it to the next commit?
I meant doing it immediately, and I was asking because I thought that's what
was being proposed for contracting a deleted keyword, but I hope (and it now
seems) that's not the case.
As far as I can tell, we're pretty much in agreement that the current behaviour
is right. The fundamental point is:
A keyword absent from 'svn:keywords' does NOT mean that Subversion
should contract it, it means that Subversion should not touch it
nor even require that it parses syntactically.
So we're left with the lesser question:
* Should we provide an easy one-step facility to contract and then ignore a
keyword?
My answer: no, I don't see any good reason for doing so. I recommend the bug
report be closed as "fixed", since the definite bug (in diff) noted in the
original Debian report has been fixed and I don't think further action is required.
- Julian
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Thu Mar 16 01:33:13 2006