Martin Hauner wrote on Sat, 29 Nov 2008 at 22:48 +0100:
> Hi Daniel,
>
> On 29.11.2008 19:17 Uhr, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> > It seems that it checks for this specific behaviour. It even has
> > a comment explaining it:
> >
> > ### These days, -N should be equivalent to --depth=files in almost
> > ### all cases. There are some exceptions (e.g., status), but commit
> > ### is not an exception.
> >
> > The comment, however, seems inaccurate, since 'svn1.4 ci -N' definitely
> > does (the equivalent of) svn_depth_empty.
> >
> > Have the semantics of 'commit' been intentionally changed? Or should we
> > just fix the test to expect -N to mean svn_depth_empty?
>
> I think the test should be corrected. I would find it surprising if it was
> intentionally changed. Why spend all the work to maintain backward
> compatibility of the old api when such basic behavior gets changed?
>
No objections, so I fixed the tests and committed this as r34487. Which
also answers your second question, right? :)
Daniel
> But i'm mostly just a casual bystander on this list, so what do i know ;-)
>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help_at_subversion.tigris.org
Received on 2008-11-30 22:33:43 CET