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

Re: svn_ra_get_file_revs2 vs. blame vs. FS API

From: Julian Foad <julianfoad_at_btopenworld.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2014 16:31:53 +0000 (GMT)

Stefan Fuhrmann wrote:
> Stefan Fuhrmann wrote:
>> Julian Foad wrote:
>>> Stefan Fuhrmann wrote:
>>>> Julian Foad wrote:
>>>>>á -- a quick optimization API -- the definitely/maybe question -- like the
>>>>>á existing implementations but documented properly and named appropriately; and
>>>>>
>>>>>á -- (perhaps) a definite content comparison API: "has the content changed?"
>>>>
>>>> I tend to prefer an extra flag parameter in a bumped version [...]
>>>
>>> Well, this is just a general API design style issue, but I think [...]
>>
>> Fair point. I was thinking about revving svn_ra_get_file_revs2
>> as well with the same new option (callers can chose whether
>> need exact reports or want to process the delta anyway).
>> That would be a pass-through value for svn_fs_*_changed.
>
> I implemented just that in my working copy and it turned out
> to be a mess. Every RA layer had to be updated and in the
> end, there would only be the blame function to use it - with
> some fixed value for the STRICT option.
>
> So, I decided to go with the separate API functions for the
> different behaviors in r1573111.

Looks good.

Thanks.
- Julian
Received on 2014-03-03 17:32:28 CET

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