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

Re: svn_client__checkout_internal and depth comment/code inconsistency

From: Karl Fogel <kfogel_at_red-bean.com>
Date: 2007-07-16 17:58:37 CEST

Vlad Georgescu <vgeorgescu@gmail.com> writes:
> I don't think any changes are necessary to svn_client__update_internal().
>
> The argument to svn_client__update_internal() is the _requested_ depth
> that is sent to the server when starting the update. This depth *can*
> be svn_depth_unknown, because the server also uses the depths from the
> individual set-path/link-path reporter calls to determine what to send
> back to the client.
>
> svn_depth_unknown is just a way of saying to the server "I'll tell you
> what's in my working copy, send me updates for just those paths". For
> example, if someone does a checkout at depth-files and also brings in a
> subdirectory, "svn update" will pull changes for all files *and* the
> subdirectory.
>
> When resuming an interrupted checkout, the requested depth will be
> svn_depth_unknown, but the set-path for the root dir will report the
> depth of the original checkout, and the server will DTRT.

Thank you, Vlad. That all makes sense; I'd forgotten that that's how
it works.

So then we just have to figure out whether passing 'svn_depth_unknown'
to svn_client__checkout_internal() should be officially OK. I'm
inclined to think it should be, and that it would just be like
svn_depth_infinity except when there's a working copy already there,
in which case the existing depth is used.

Do you agree?

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Mon Jul 16 17:57:52 2007

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