Max Bowsher wrote:
>>> Well, I'm inclined to alter the specification to state the Node-kind is
>>> irrelevant, and should be omitted on write, and ignored on read, for a
>>> copied node other than in the case of "Node-action: replace", in which
>>> case the Node-kind specifies the kind of the *new* node, which may be
>>> different from the copyfrom node.
>> You'd rather change the spec to have a 4-line-long complex special-case
>> condition description than to just fix cvs2svn, which appears to be
>> intentionally omitting this header?
>>
>> (from dumpfile_delegate.py:DumpfileDelegate.copy_path():)
>>
>> # We don't need to include "Node-kind:" for copies; the loader
>> # ignores it anyway and just uses the source kind instead.
>
> No, I'd prefer to change to spec to avoid the disparity of having
> Node-kind be defined to be the copyfrom kind for non-replace actions,
> but the replacing kind for replace actions.
I don't see the disparity. In both cases, Node-kind is the kind of node
that will be created as a result of the action. But hey, the extra docs
explanation can't hurt. I do believe that Node-kind should continue to be
required, though.
--
C. Michael Pilato <cmpilato@collab.net>
CollabNet <> www.collab.net <> Distributed Development On Demand
Received on Thu Apr 12 04:28:18 2007