On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 07:53, Greg Stein <gstein_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 07:42, Philip Martin <philip.martin_at_wandisco.com> wrote:
>> Greg Stein <gstein_at_gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> Thus, the notion of moved_here is not all that relevant because I
>>> would hope this function won't survive to the point where we start
>>> recording moves in wc_db (so, thus, we'll never record/generate that
>>> status).
>>
>> I don't understand that paragraph. Do we record moves now? Are we
>> going to record moves in the future? You seem to imply that we will
>> in future record moves and simultaneously that we won't generate a
>> svn_wc__db_status_moved_here. It doesn't really seem to make sense.
>
> We do *not* record moves today.
>
> We *will* at some point in the future, which is most likely *after*
> the 1.7 release.
>
> The node functions will *hopefully* die *before* 1.7.
>
> Thus, moved_here is not a strongly relevant concept for the node
> functions, *unless* we decide a given function's semantic is truly
> material and should survive as a (semi?) public WC API for use by
> libsvn_client.
And that said, we *are* trying to accommodate that returned status
wherever possible. As much code as possible should be
reading/expecting it to happen. It just won't for a while.
I think my point is that we can cut corners in the node functions, in
this particular case.
Cheers,
-g
Received on 2010-03-02 14:00:48 CET