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

Re: Semantics of --depth: should define WC-depth for omitted-items?

From: Karl Fogel <kfogel_at_red-bean.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 13:51:52 -0400

"Rui, Guo" <timmyguo_at_mail.ustc.edu.cn> writes:
> new1_path) to check it in the "add_tree_with_depth_files" test
> case. To my surprise, the depth of new added directory is still
> infinity. What do you think about this? Do I made a wrong assumption
> or is it actually a bug?

Hmm. That's a really good question; I'm not sure I know the answer.
Let me re-ask the question more directly, for people just arriving:

Folks, svn takes the '--depth' option to the other commands besides
'checkout' and 'update'. For example, 'svn add --depth=FOO NEWTREE'

   "Add NEWTREE, but only include the parts of it reachable when
    descending as far as depth FOO from the top."

And that is how we behave right now. But the question is, once NEWTREE
is under version control, should it be at depth=FOO or depth=infinity?

Right now, it's at depth=infinity. While that's useful in some cases, I
think it might be more consistent, and more in line with user
expectations, for it to be at depth=FOO.



To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help_at_subversion.tigris.org
Received on 2008-04-17 19:52:12 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.