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

RE: depth of the operation vs. depth of the WC

From: Rui, Guo <timmyguo_at_mail.ustc.edu.cn>
Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2008 14:44:24 +0800

> > The first is about "depth-exclude", a definition you can find in
> > while not explicitly documented. The comments say that it's reserved for
> > future use and does not have any client side support yet. Shouldn't this
> > documented too if it is a deliberated design? (PS: I can't imagine how
> > it be usefully personally. I'm already happy enough with depth-empty)
> It seems someone has documented it now :-). Are you looking at recent
> code?

If you are referring to the comments in the svn_types.h, yes I have noticed
this. What I was trying to say is that, why do we have to introduce another
depth-exclude? Solely for flexibility or expandability?

> > The second is the --changelist, which seems to honor the depth option in
> > implementation of "svn update". I'd not had time to read the document
> > it yet. So, does it interfere with the logic of sparse-directories?
> Er, actually I don't know. Do you see any interfering behaviors?
I've not gotten a chance to figure it out yet. I'll try in a couple of days.

> > The third is about the examples in the document. I suggest all the
> > not-implemented examples be retained now that we have a special section
> > them. In addition, those examples should use --set-depth instead of
> > Just fix it :-)
> Sure. Could you supply a patch for this? :-)
> (See http://subversion.tigris.org/hacking.html#patches.)
I'll send a patch this night to preserve the existing examples.
Moreover, it would be my next step to come up with use cases to cover as
many situations as possible. I'll post a new thread with a list of cases to
be covered when it is ready, and fill in details later.

> It means that if the WC depth is shallower than the requested depth, the
> WC depth of course governs. I changed the text, see how it is now.
This used to confuse me a lot. However, it looks pretty good now. :-)

> > And the document also says this:
> > <===========QUOTE=============>
> > Inside such a working copy, running 'svn up' by itself will update
> > only what is already present, but running 'svn up OMITTED_SUBDIR'
> > will cause OMITTED_SUBDIR to be brought in at depth-infinity, while
> > the rest of the parent working copy remains at its previous depth.
> > <=========ENE OF QUOTE========>
> > Does this behavior apply to omitted-FILE? If id does, how could the test
> > "depth_immediates_bring_in_file" in depth_tests.py pass?
> It should apply to OMMITTED_FILE, yes.
> In that test, I believe it is the top level that is depth=immediates, so
> A/ is depth=empty, and we can bring in A/mu by naming it explicitly.
What I mean is the skipped "A/D/gamma" in that test. Shouldn't it be
considered OMMITTED_FILE and got brought in too?

Thank you
Rui, Guo

To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help_at_subversion.tigris.org
Received on 2008-04-04 08:44:45 CEST

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

This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.