Greg Hudson wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-08-28 at 09:58 +0300, Vlad Georgescu wrote:
>> I guess my point was, svn switch --relocate is wrong because --relocate is not
>> (and cannot be) a flag for svn_client_switch, instead it does a completely
>> different thing, takes different arguments, etc. So, it seems sane to move it
>> to a different subcommand.
>
> I understand how that argument applies to the current world.
>
> I don't understand how that implies to the new world (after your patch)
> where "switch" can also do a relocate. In the new world, it would seem
> like relocate could definitely be a flag for svn_client_switch. The
> flag just disables the update and portion of the switch (and, as a
> consequence, means the repository-relative part of the URL must be the
> same for the source and destination).
Are you suggesting we implement "svn sw --relocate" on top of
svn_client_switch() + my patch + the new flag? It's possible, but what's the
point, considering we already have svn_client_relocate() for that?
>
> Also, in the new world, I don't see why relocate needs to take different
> arguments than switch.
Assuming you're talking about the command line UI, not API's, don't we need to
preserve backward compatibility?
--
Vlad
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help_at_subversion.tigris.org
Received on 2008-08-28 21:21:21 CEST