[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: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 17:27:22 +0800

On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 12:30:57PM -0400, Karl Fogel wrote:
> "Rui, Guo" <timmyguo_at_mail.ustc.edu.cn> writes:
> > Agree. There is no obvious best choice to satisfy all here. Both choice are
> > reasonable from its standpoint and inevitably have some shortcoming. We can
> > choose to accept current behavior and document the divergence, or to maintain
> > the consistency by modifying the current behavior.
> >
> > It's the decision itselfthat most important. Both choice are acceptable to me.
> > Though I personally prefer the consistency a little, slightly...
> I think I do too -- that is, the operational depth becomes the "set"
> depth for added trees. Would you like to try writing the patch?
Certainly I would like to. However, it may take me some time to handle this,
since this will be my first patch on the code. :)

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 2008-04-22 11:27:40 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.