Re: Consistency between 'update' and 'switch' APIs

I (Julian Foad) wrote:

[...]
> PROPOSAL
>
>   - svn_ra_do_update2(): revise to svn_ra_do_update3(), add the
> 'ignore_ancestry' option there too, and use two pools while we're at
>
> it.  Track this change in the RA vtable 'update' method, protocols, etc.
>
>   - svn_wc__get_switch_editor(): add 'adds_as_modification'.
>
>   - svn_client__update_internal(), svn_client_update4(): add
> 'ignore_ancestry'.
>
>   - svn_client__switch_internal(), svn_client_switch4(): add
> 'adds_as_modification'.
>
>
> RATIONALE
>
> Do I really have to explain why Consistency is Good?

Consistency alone doesn't require us to add the options where missing; we could also remove them where present.  These options exist because we decided at some point that we wanted them, and I think we still want them and we definitely still need them for backward compatibility.

- Julian
Received on 2013-03-13 17:29:56 CET