Bert Huijben wrote: > If we don't want to change the editor just now we could just use the 'entry > property' infrastructure to communicate the information that a specific copy > is actually a move. (This would fix the cases of moving files and doesn't > require any editor or implementation fixes. Directory moves are not > communicated as copies over the update editor in the current editorV1 code, > so that would require a separate fix. But we can easily work around this > using the capability negotiation we added in 1.5).
I've only just now gotten around to reading this thread, but I'm chuckling over here at this part because I suggested exactly the same thing in NYC last week! It's not the cleanest way to communicate non-editor info from the server to the client, but we have precedent for it already. I'd be +1 on tossing an extra "entry prop" into the protocol if it means helping out the tree conflict stuffs while stopping well short of a massive editor v2 rewrite. -- C. Michael Pilato <cmpil...@collab.net> CollabNet <> www.collab.net <> Distributed Development On Demand
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
