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

From: Karl Fogel <kfogel_at_red-bean.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 11:10:47 -0400

"Rui, Guo" <timmyguo_at_mail.ustc.edu.cn> writes:
>> 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. :)

Well, since your Summer of Code project was accepted (congratulations),
this is a good place to start! :-)

We're always here for questions, of course.

-Karl

---------------------------------------------------------------------
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 17:11:33 CEST

This message: [ Message body ]
Next message: Julian Foad: "Re: [PATCH] Repository root relative support for the command-line client"
Previous message: Karl Fogel: "Re: [PATCH] depth test case: unversioned & modified items left untouched when folded"
Maybe in reply to: Rui, Guo: "Semantics of --depth: should define WC-depth for omitted-items?"
Next in thread: Rui, Guo: "[PATCH] Fix --depth behavior for svn add (Re: Semantics of --depth: should define WC-depth for omitted-items?)"
Reply: Rui, Guo: "[PATCH] Fix --depth behavior for svn add (Re: Semantics of --depth: should define WC-depth for omitted-items?)"

Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by thread ] [ by subject ] [ by author ] [ by messages with attachments ]