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

Re: Problems with the documentation of Subversion dump format

From: Eric S. Raymond <esr_at_thyrsus.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 09:47:25 -0500

C. Michael Pilato <cmpilato_at_collab.net>:
> On 12/14/2011 07:11 AM, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
> > Which brings up a question: should a delete on a non-empty directory succeed
> > or fail?
>
> Succeed.

Thank you, that will go into the 0.3 draft.
 
> > IMO, part of the reason this stuff is confusing is that your
> > terminology is inadequate; see previous note to Daniel Shahaf. I get
> > what you mean by "container" but I think that label confuses more than
> > it enlightens. In the draft I'm using the term "flow" for a sequence
> > of actions on a path.
>
> I agree about the terminology. I was trying (and failing, it seems) to
> adapt to your own terminology. What a tangled web we weave...

Heh. Just to add to the confusion, Daniel says that what I'm calling a
"flow" is elswehere called a "node" and that what I'm calling a "node"
is elsewhere called a "node-revision".

I'm not sure how I want to deal with this in the 0.3 draft. The
problem with what he's telling me is the correct terminology leaves
the term "node" pretty overloaded. Best thing may be to change "node"
in the document to "node-revision" and leave in "flow" with a note
indicating that the source code sometimes calls this a "node".

> The copyfrom attribute was designed to be valid only on "add" and "replace",
> not "change" (or "delete"). And yes, directory changes may only contain
> properties after the header block -- no text.

Good, that certainly simplifies life. Please have a look at the 0.2 draft
and see what if anything needs fixing.

-- 
		Eric S. Raymond

Received on 2011-12-14 15:48:33 CET

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