C. Michael Pilato [cmpilato@collab.net] wrote:
> Brummer, Byron wrote:
> > This means if you want to pull the
> > log for the revision in which the object was removed
> > you first need to find the exact revision it took
> > place (a pita but doable) and then ask for the log
> > of that revision using the URL of the base repo, not
> > the object's path.
>
> The deletion of an object is not an operation on the object -- it's an
> operation on the parent of the object (the removal of a child). It
> follows that querying about that operation should be more closely
bound
> to the target of the operation. You didn't change the file -- you
> simply made it awfully hard to get to it. :-)
Using this logic a rename or copy of an object doesn't relate
to the object but to the target directory that it's being
copied or moved into. Shale we blow away "copied from"
history from the object? After all the object didn't
change, the directories did. The logic even continues
into the first revision of an object in that the object
isn't "changing" in its first revision, it's appearing,
which has no more logical relationship to the object then
the object's disappearance.
When you visit the cemetery and look at a grave stone,
it does not read:
"Joe Blow: 1932 - "
It reads:
"Joe Blow: 1932 - 1998"
But in SVN we get the former. It makes no sense to
claim to present the history of something and yet
rip out the last chapter leaving the book incomplete.
Would you teach about WWII without covering how it
ended, or if it ended at all?!
-Byron
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Wed Jan 10 04:00:01 2007