Greg Stein wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 16:51, Neels J Hofmeyr <neels_at_elego.de> wrote:
>> Greg Stein wrote:
>> ...
>>> and recall that BASE == what you checked out from the repository.
>>> WORKING corresponds to added/removed/copied/moved nodes. For nodes in
>> Yes, I learnt this from Bert last week, and also that the current *@BASE*
>> commandline keyword refers to the "copy_from" of the *WORKING* tree for all
>> the add-with-history schedules :)
>
> I don't think it is advisable to try to make any correlation between
> the cmdline markers and the names that we use internally for the
> trees.
I agree, but of course, anyone new to the subject of svn_wc will
automatically have the association '@BASE' <-> 'BASE tree' popping up.
They're even both in all-caps.
From our discussion on 'svn cat' behaviour (with Julian and Bert), I know
that @BASE does not always mean 'exactly what was checked out', but I think,
and it seems Julian agrees, that most users would expect @BASE to actually
mean strictly the BASE tree info. Until told otherwise, I thought 'svn cat
file_at_BASE' was buggy in that respect and tried to fix it :/
It seems a little unfortunate to have this "naming ambiguity". But there we
go. Need to keep the current behavior. We can only add new keywords...
For the record:
"@BASE" == svn_opt_revision_base
is NOT ALWAYS the same as
"BASE tree" == svn_wc__db_base_get_info
(although they are the same when there is no 'new' history in the WORKING tree)
I humbly suggested "@ORIG" to represent the "BASE tree". Any comments on
actually implementing that? I'm not sure if it is really needed by people,
but it may help to explain what "@BASE" is (as opposed to "@ORIG").
>> (read_info's comment sounds like it:
>> " * The information returned comes from the BASE tree, as possibly modified
>> * by the WORKING and ACTUAL trees. ")
>
> Sounds like the comment could/should be improved.
+1
That could probably save us some amount of IRC and mail traffic :)
~Neels
Received on 2010-01-28 15:18:29 CET