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