[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: Rui, Guo <timmyguo_at_mail.ustc.edu.cn>
Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2008 14:18:28 +0800

On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 08:11:30AM -0400, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
> 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?
Perfectly agree! I did not understand your example correctly until I did the
experiment after my first reply. Now, it is clear that the example does not
serve as a vote for the "middle ground" but be another tricky situation when
mantaining the consistency.

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 2008-04-19 08:18:43 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.