[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: RFC: Improvements to 'svn mergeinfo' subcommand for 1.7

From: Paul Burba <ptburba_at_gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2009 01:25:07 -0400

On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 11:45 AM, C. Michael Pilato <cmpilato_at_collab.net> wrote:
> Mark Phippard wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 11:16 AM, Paul Burba<ptburba_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 11:00 AM, Mark Phippard<markphip_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 10:54 AM, Paul Burba<ptburba_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> I'd like to make two changes to the svn mergeinfo command for 1.7 to
>>>>> address these drawbacks:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1) Account for Non-Inheritable Revision Ranges
>>>>> ----------------------------------------------
>>>> +1 to this one.  I think it is a no-brainer that we should definitely just do.
>>>>
>>>>> 2) Optionally Consider Subtrees with Explicit Mergeinfo
>>>>> -------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> I'd like to add the --depth option to svn mergeinfo so these differing
>>>>> subtrees are considered.  As above, revisions that are only partially
>>>>> merged to the target would be marked with a '*':
>>>> I am not sure about using --depth for this.  I think I would just use
>>>> -R.  If you are going to use depth, then you need to make all of the
>>>> different depth options have some kind of meaning, and I cannot see
>>>> that being useful for this.  You pretty much either want to just base
>>>> it on the target, or on everything (fully recursive).
>>> I agree that the use cases for svn mergeinfo --depth immediates |
>>> files are probably quite limited, but was under the impression that -R
>>> | -N have effectively been deprecated in favor of --depth?
>>
>> Possibly.  Not sure.  I think in cases like this one, if that is our
>> policy then it is the wrong one.  It also means you will have to write
>> the code to implement support for options that no one needs or wants.
>
> While I believe we have deprecated -N (as its meaning differed from
> subcommand to subcommand), -R is *absolutely not* deprecated, and remains
> the preferred shorthand for --depth=infinity.
>
> I would encourage you to allow both -R and --depth options, but feel free to
> make any --depth value except "infinity" or "empty" (the default) return
> SVN_ERR_UNSUPPORTED_FEATURE for now.
>
> --
> C. Michael Pilato <cmpilato_at_collab.net>
> CollabNet   <>   www.collab.net   <>   Distributed Development On Demand

Added support for -R and --depth infinity | empty to 'svn mergeinfo' in r39350.

Paul

------------------------------------------------------
http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=462&dsMessageId=2395346
Received on 2009-09-16 07:25:24 CEST

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.