"David Glasser" <glasser@davidglasser.net> writes:
> I've thought a little more about that. There are two main places
> where an "svn_depth_exclude" value needs to be dealt with: in the
> working copy, and in the repository reporter. The former opens up a
> huge can of design worms, including the fact that we have no UI for
> depth downgrade yet. (However, given the ability to do any
> downgrading at all, supporting it for svn_depth_exclude should be
> straightforward.) The latter ought to be a whole lot simpler.
>
> My current thought is to bring back svn_depth_exclude but support it
> *only* for calls to set_path (and friends) in the ra/repos reporters;
> I'll test that it works in a C unit test in repos-tests.c. The
> expectation would be that the 1.5 client wouldn't ever use this
> (because we don't have the right UI to get svn_depth_exclude values
> into wc depth fields), but that no heroic client/server compatibility
> work would be needed when it is supported in the wc.
>
> (The implicit assumption here is that we do understand now what a wc
> with some depth=exclude values would *look* like on disk; the tough
> part is just designing the right UI and implementing the
> transformations to get it to the right place. And I think we do.)
+1
These ideas have appeared asynchronously in several threads now, but
it's comforting to see that at least we come to the same conclusion
each time :-).
-Karl
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Wed Nov 21 21:39:39 2007