>> Bert Huijben wrote: >>> Currently @BASE is the 'previous' version of the node that will be >>> committed. For added and replaced nodes with history there is no @BASE. [...] Julian Foad wrote: > I always thought (and still think) that, from the user's point of view, > "base" always meant "the version that my local changes are based on", (this definition is slightly ambiguous ^, it's more clear here:) > also being "the version that somebody else would get if they check out > the same revision number that I checked out". That is like Neels' "ORIG" > descibed above. The "-r BASE" revision keyword always means that. The [...]
Testing 'svn diff --old=f...@base --new=file'[...@working] and 'svn cat f...@base', it actually looks like the UI keyword BASE is defined as copy-from-base instead of ORIG. Which IMHO goes against users' intuition. Summarizing the questions I still have (even more so) now: i) Should the UI keyword "BASE" mean revert-base or copy-from-base? i.b) Do we need to be able to show both cases? (Like add a new keyword) ii) Does "pristine" mean revert-base or copy-from-base? ii.b) Does svn_wc__get_pristine_contents() correspond to that? Thanks, ~Neels
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
