Rui, Guo wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 02:18:34PM -0400, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
>> Perhaps there's a middle ground to consider seeking: Adding NEWTREE at
>> depth (FOO - (depth from TARGET to FOO). Yes, in the case of 'svn add
>> --depth=FOO NEWTREE', that's depth=FOO. But what about 'svn add --force
>> --depth=immediates parent=of-NEWTREE' ? Seems in that case you want
>> NEWTREE added at depth empty, since that's what left of a depth-immediates
>> additive crawl of its parent directory (the actual target of the operation).
> Perhaps I didn't correctly get your idea in my previous reply. However, my
> reply seems still apply. :-)
>
> Instead of your example:
> svn add --force --depth=immediates parent=of-NEWTREE
>
> I tried this instead...
> svn add --depth=immediates --parents NEWTREE
> In this situation, the depth of intermediate parents is not explicitly
> defined, while the depth of the target should be set to immediates. However,
> the depth of the intermediate parents can be set to depth-empty according to
> the current behavior.
>
> As of your example, I just agree with your expectation. That is reasonable.
If I'm understanding all this correctly, I think what you've said makes
sense. Consistency demands that --depth continue to act (as it does with
all other commands) as an operational filter applied to the operation
target(s) -- not applied individually to operationally interesting children
of those targets. The distinction there is meaningful.
In my example, the target of the operation is one directory level above
NEWTREE, which means NEWTREE is permitted one fewer depth level during the
operation. In your example, NEWTREE is the target of the operation, so it
is permitted the entirety of the specified depth level.
Agreed?
--
C. Michael Pilato <cmpilato_at_collab.net>
CollabNet <> www.collab.net <> Distributed Development On Demand
Received on 2008-04-18 14:11:42 CEST