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

Re: libsvn_wc bug: pristine contents for locally replaced file

From: Neels J Hofmeyr <neels_at_elego.de>
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 14:16:21 +0100

>> Bert Huijben wrote:
>>> Currently @BASE is the 'previous' version of the node that will be
>>> committed. For added and replaced nodes with history there is no @BASE.
[...]
Julian Foad wrote:
> I always thought (and still think) that, from the user's point of view,
> "base" always meant "the version that my local changes are based on",
(this definition is slightly ambiguous ^, it's more clear here:)
> also being "the version that somebody else would get if they check out
> the same revision number that I checked out". That is like Neels' "ORIG"
> descibed above. The "-r BASE" revision keyword always means that. The
[...]

Testing 'svn diff --old=file_at_BASE --new=file'[@WORKING] and 'svn cat
file_at_BASE', it actually looks like the UI keyword BASE is defined as
copy-from-base instead of ORIG. Which IMHO goes against users' intuition.

Summarizing the questions I still have (even more so) now:

i) Should the UI keyword "BASE" mean revert-base or copy-from-base?
i.b) Do we need to be able to show both cases? (Like add a new keyword)

ii) Does "pristine" mean revert-base or copy-from-base?
ii.b) Does svn_wc__get_pristine_contents() correspond to that?

Thanks,
~Neels

Received on 2010-01-18 14:17:03 CET

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