On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 01:39:45AM +0300, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> gstein_at_apache.org wrote on Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 14:45:02 -0000:
> > Author: gstein
> > Date: Wed Jan 25 14:45:01 2012
> > New Revision: 1235773
> >
> > URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1235773&view=rev
> > Log:
> > Add some clarifications to the Ev2 documentation, based on some IRC
> > discussions with danielsh.
> >
> > * subversion/include/svn_editor.h:
> > (...): add a section on "Timing and State" to clarify how the
> > editing calls refer to the receiver's current state. provide a
> > couple examples.
> >
> > Modified:
> > subversion/trunk/subversion/include/svn_editor.h
> >
> > Modified: subversion/trunk/subversion/include/svn_editor.h
> > URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/subversion/trunk/subversion/include/svn_editor.h?rev=1235773&r1=1235772&r2=1235773&view=diff
> > ==============================================================================
> > --- subversion/trunk/subversion/include/svn_editor.h (original)
> > +++ subversion/trunk/subversion/include/svn_editor.h Wed Jan 25 14:45:01 2012
> > @@ -329,6 +329,19 @@ extern "C" {
> > * for these items are invoked.
> > * \n\n
> > *
> > + * <h3>Timing and State</h3>
> > + * The calls made by the driver to alter the state in the receiver are
> > + * based on the receiver's *current* state, which includes all prior changes
> > + * made during the edit.
> > + *
>
> Should we change this to say:
>
> + * <h3>Timing and State</h3>
> + * The calls made by the driver to alter the state in the receiver are
> + * based on the receiver's *initial* state, which excludes all prior changes
> + * made during the edit.
>
> ?
>
> I've reviewed the IRC logs referred to in the log msg [1], as well as
> today's, and I don't see a good reason to stick with the "refers to
> current state"; and I do see a good reason to use "refers to initial
> state": that's closer to the final copyfrom (or moved-from) info.
> I also find "refers to the initial state" more intuitive.
>
There was some more discussion on IRC today.
It involved the following case:
svn mv A B; svn mv B/C D; svn ci;
which could be represented in Ev2 as:
move(A, B); move(B/C, D);
or as:
move(A/C, D); move(B, D);
It's not clear to me yet which of the two options is preferred, or whether
there are more options.
Daniel
> Daniel
>
> [1] http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/svn-dev?date=2012-01-25
> [2] http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/svn-dev?date=2013-06-26
>
> > + * Example: copy A to B; set-props on A; copy A to C. The props on C
> > + * should reflect the updated properties of A.
> > + *
> > + * Example: mv A_at_N to B; mv C_at_M to A. The second move cannot be marked as
> > + * a "replacing" move since it is not replacing A. The node at A was moved
> > + * away. The second operation is simply moving C to the now-empty path
> > + * known as A.
> > + *
> > * <h3>Paths</h3>
> > * Each driver/receiver implementation of this editor interface must
> > * establish the expected root path for the paths sent and received via the
> >
> >
Received on 2013-06-26 01:18:51 CEST