On Fri, 2010-02-19, Greg Stein wrote: > revnum is NOT inheritable. > > I prefer copied/moved-here rather than "added-with-history". The > latter phrase is somewhat opaque to readers on what operation was > actually performed by the user. > > The rest seems fine. Thx!
Thanks. Committed with those changes in r912537. - Julian > On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 12:30, Philip Martin <philip.mar...@wandisco.com> > wrote: > > Philip Martin <philip.mar...@wandisco.com> writes: > > > >> Greg Stein <gst...@gmail.com> writes: > >> > >>> revnum is NOT inheritable. > >> > >> At presnt working_node.parent_relpath says: > >> > >> /* parent's local_relpath for aggregating children of a given parent. > >> this will be "" if the parent is the wcroot. NULL if this is the > >> wcroot node. */ > >> parent_relpath TEXT, > >> > >> Does it make sense for a working node to be a wcroot? > > Hmm. You're right. I'm not sure how you could possibly get a wcroot > into such a state. You're not allowed to delete it, nor copy/move > something over it. ... well, maybe we *could*, but it would be quite > weird to not do that from a checkout of the parent. > > > Sent too early. I meant to ask is it inheritable? > > Nope. parent_relpath is intended to be a key, so that you can easily > find all nodes within a given directory. (which is also why we have > I_PARENT and friends). > > > Regarding inheriting repos_* values... I'm beginning to think that may > be more trouble than its worth. The idea was to avoid having to > compute them all the time, or to have to update them during a switch, > etc. But... having to compensate for their absence is now seeming to > be worse. > > Cheers, > -g
