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

Re: Move using initial state

From: Greg Stein <gstein_at_gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2013 16:07:14 -0500

On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 11:29 AM, Julian Foad <julianfoad_at_btopenworld.com> wrote:
> Philip Martin wrote:
>> The current Ev2 has atomic add for files and directories, it doesn't
>> attempt to reuse the alter operations by adding "empty" nodes and then
>> altering those empty nodes. The current Ev2 also has move and copy
>> operations that do attempt to resuse alter. I'm not clear why they are
>> different. Why is add different from move/copy?


It is striking a balance between atomicity, and combinatoric growth.
The API doesn't have to be "pure"... it needs to work.

(iow, we can skip the Second System Syndrome and get stuff done,
rather than perfect)

I don't think it poses a serious problem. But yeah... if it does, then
we'd want to expand move/copy with the variants.

>> move_here_file(src_path, dst_path, properties, content, replaces_rev)
>> move_here_dir(src_path, dst_path, properties, children, replaces_rev)
>> copy_file(src_path, src_rev, dst_path, properties, content, replaces_rev)
>> copy_dir(src_path, src_rev, dst_path, properties, children, replaces_rev)

Don't forget the symlink variants!

> Yup. Alternatively, we could make 'alter' the *only* way to declare a node's content:

And now you lose much of the atomicity.

Received on 2013-09-09 23:07:47 CEST

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

This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.