plundblad@google.com (Peter Lundblad) writes:
> Greg Hudson writes:
>> I'm with Peter on this one. I don't see why we should be
>> second-guessing the future necessity of depth in particular as a
>> parameter, nor do I think that parameters in general should be made
>> optional just because they might some day in some unknown way become
>> obsolete. (I realize in this case it's zero-cost to do so because
>> backward-compatibility already forces the server to handle the case of
>> an unspecified depth. But it's conceptually messy, to me, and it's a
>> bad precedent.)
>
> Yeah, my intention was to make the protocol easy to understand.
> If you make a parameter optional, you must document its meaning *today*
> (which was depth infinitiy) and then clients start relying on that...
Okay, let's leave it de-tupled.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Mon Mar 12 19:43:54 2007