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

Re: '@BASE' vs. 'BASE tree' -- was: Re: svn_wc__db_base_get_info() vs. svn_wc__db_read_info() ?

From: Neels J Hofmeyr <neels_at_elego.de>
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2010 17:14:37 +0100

Julian Foad wrote:
> Hi, all. I've written up this brief definition of the WC-NG DB trees at
> <http://subversion.wandisco.com/wiki/index.php/WC-NG_trees_-_defining_BASE_and_WORKING_and_ACTUAL>. Could you all have a look and add to it or just mention to me anything that is worth noting or correcting. After a few rounds I'll move it to an in-tree document.

I note that the lower section talks about 'base' as what-I-checked-out, but
when users use @base on the svn commandline, it means 'the pristine of what
will be committed' for locally added/replaced/... nodes. Confusing :)

I would also suggest to list 'pristine' as one of the names *not* to use
instead of the NG-BASE tree (as I said before once) -- we already have
another PRISTINE table, and in the wc.db, 'pristine' now means 'the cached
fulltext content of a file, regardless of which path_at_rev it is at and
without any metadata'. The NG-BASE references pristines and stores metadata,
so let's not start to confuse them.


Received on 2010-02-19 17:15:18 CET

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