Re: No no-op changes

C. Michael Pilato wrote:
> On 09/22/2014 11:04 AM, Julian Foad wrote:
>>  Would you accept that it now makes more sense to make the overall
>>  system behaviour more consistent by moving towards the majority
>>  direction (not preserving no-ops)? At least at some layers -- repos
>>  layer or RA layer?
>
> "At least at some layers", yes, absolutely.
>
> In general, I favor consistency, but the scope of that consistency
> matters, [...]

Excellent. Thank you for clarifying.

> More to the topic, I continue to see value in preserving no-op
> operations in the FS layer.  But at the client end of things, I would
> agree that the most users don't care to be bothered by such nuances.  So
> as it does for others of those behaviors that differ at extreme ends of
> the Subversion system, some mitigation needs to take place somewhere in
> the middle.  And that "somewhere" depends on what you want to permit.

Yup. So let's say we can agree to hide this behaviour at the repos layer. Then we face the decision of what to do with the FS layer:

  * make FS layer consistently version no-ops
    -- a lot of work at FS layer
    -- some work at repos layer

  * make FS layer consistently not version no-ops
    -- some work at FS layer
    -- no work at repos layer

  * leave FS layer as it is, partially implemented
    -- no work at FS layer
    -- some work at repos layer

Which approach would you favour, and why?

> For example, if that mitigation happens at the repos layer, that's fine
> for the most part ... but what about the likes of 'svnrdump', which is
> trying its darnedest to act like a repos-layer dump/load driver but sits
> on the other end of the higher RA layer?

Anything working over the RA layer is subject to RA layer limitations -- this already applies in respect of authorization, for example. So no problem there.

- Julian
Received on 2014-09-22 18:14:10 CEST