Greg Stein wrote: > On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 16:51, Neels J Hofmeyr <ne...@elego.de> wrote: >> Greg Stein wrote: >> ... >>> and recall that BASE == what you checked out from the repository. >>> WORKING corresponds to added/removed/copied/moved nodes. For nodes in >> Yes, I learnt this from Bert last week, and also that the current *...@base* >> commandline keyword refers to the "copy_from" of the *WORKING* tree for all >> the add-with-history schedules :) > > I don't think it is advisable to try to make any correlation between > the cmdline markers and the names that we use internally for the > trees.
I agree, but of course, anyone new to the subject of svn_wc will automatically have the association '@BASE' <-> 'BASE tree' popping up. They're even both in all-caps. From our discussion on 'svn cat' behaviour (with Julian and Bert), I know that @BASE does not always mean 'exactly what was checked out', but I think, and it seems Julian agrees, that most users would expect @BASE to actually mean strictly the BASE tree info. Until told otherwise, I thought 'svn cat f...@base' was buggy in that respect and tried to fix it :/ It seems a little unfortunate to have this "naming ambiguity". But there we go. Need to keep the current behavior. We can only add new keywords... For the record: "@BASE" == svn_opt_revision_base is NOT ALWAYS the same as "BASE tree" == svn_wc__db_base_get_info (although they are the same when there is no 'new' history in the WORKING tree) I humbly suggested "@ORIG" to represent the "BASE tree". Any comments on actually implementing that? I'm not sure if it is really needed by people, but it may help to explain what "@BASE" is (as opposed to "@ORIG"). >> (read_info's comment sounds like it: >> " * The information returned comes from the BASE tree, as possibly modified >> * by the WORKING and ACTUAL trees. ") > > Sounds like the comment could/should be improved. +1 That could probably save us some amount of IRC and mail traffic :) ~Neels
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
