Oh, and the patch should also include an extra line in read_path_info
and write_path_info in reporter.c to properly marshal
On Nov 21, 2007 6:22 PM, David Glasser <email@example.com> wrote:
> On Nov 21, 2007 3:39 PM, Karl Fogel <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > "David Glasser" <email@example.com> 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 said he could review a patch if I got it out Real Soon, so
> hopefully that will excuse my lack of log message.
> I will write a C unit test before actually committing this.
> My main concerns with the reporter side of this patch is that I might
> be missing some weird case where the excluded item is found not deep
> in the delta_dirs recursion but back at the top, so I need to be doing
> something in finish_report or drive too...
> Patch attached. Only the reporter.c change is "new"; the other two
> changes are reverting r27958 and a change to the options parser that
> should have been around before r27958 anyway...
> David Glasser | glasser_at_davidglasser.net | http://www.davidglasser.net/
David Glasser | glasser_at_davidglasser.net | http://www.davidglasser.net/
To unsubscribe, e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
For additional commands, e-mail: email@example.com
Received on Thu Nov 22 09:32:30 2007