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

Re: svn commit: r30205 - trunk/notes

From: David Glasser <glasser_at_davidglasser.net>
Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2008 15:43:15 -0700

On Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 3:25 PM, Karl Fogel <kfogel_at_red-bean.com> wrote:
> "David Glasser" <glasser_at_davidglasser.net> writes:
> > Though actually it varies. In the CLI, -N does what I described. But
> > various other layers translate recurse to depth differently. eg, the
> > "add" exception doesn't exist in svn_client_add3. In svnserve's
> > 'status' handler, non-recursive goes to empty. Etc.
> I updated the document in r30301. See the diff; I think all that was
> really needed was to say "here's how -N behaves" and "see individual doc
> strings for API compatibility", so that's what I did.
> > I think we need to go back to what we had before where the conversion
> > macro has a clear role name:
> >
> >
> > Then it's absolutely obvious if a given use of the macro is consistent
> > or not. The status quo is a mess.
> Well, the status quo is a mess for trying to answer certain kinds of
> questions, but the other way is a mess for other kinds of questions. I
> kind of prefer the macros to just say what they do, and then we use a
> particular macro wherever we want its particular functionality.
> > (Unless there's some reason that the special-casing of these
> > operations should be different at the UI, the client API, and the RA
> > API levels?)
> Hysterical raisins? :-)
> Seriously, I suspect in every case the decision was compatibility. That
> is, we have to preserve whatever inconsistencies we had before, in a
> backwards-compatible way. (That's another reason why the current macro
> names are better: the alternative leaves the reader wondering whether
> it's talking about the CLI command, the client command, or the RA
> command).

So you're confident the current massive inconsistency is correct and
not an oversight? I'm unconvinced. I understand that different
operations have different compatibility issues, but I find it hard to
believe that the conversion from bool->depth for different RA layers
is different, or that it's different from the client API wrapping it,


David Glasser | glasser@davidglasser.net | http://www.davidglasser.net/
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help_at_subversion.tigris.org
Received on 2008-04-05 00:43:26 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.