On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 09:59:48AM -0400, C. Michael Pilato wrote: > > On 06/23/2011 09:33 AM, s...@apache.org wrote: > > Author: stsp > > Date: Thu Jun 23 13:33:57 2011 > > New Revision: 1138871 > > > > URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1138871&view=rev > > Log: > > As part of internal API cleanup, and in the name of code clarity, > > rename svn_wc__db_status_absent to svn_wc__db_status_unauthz (not > > authorized), because this is what 'absent' really means. Now there > > is less potential for confusing 'absent' with 'not-present' and 'excluded'. > > I disagree with this change. The working copy does not -- and cannot -- > know why the server has chosen to omit a child from a directory. Maybe it's > because of authz. Maybe it's because of some as-yet-developed obliterate > side-effect. Who knows? The point is, the decision was the server's to > make, and the client isn't privy to the reasoning behind it. That's why we > used something as generic as "absent" in the first place. > > Now, I'm fine with using something other than "absent" ("omitted", > "withheld", ...), but -1 on any terminology that allows the WC to presume to > know what it simply cannot.
Julian also suggested "server-excluded". Would that work? It should be more descriptive than "absent" and sufficiently different from "not-present" and "excluded". None of the alternatives you suggest carry more information than "absent", nor are they sufficiently different from the other terms.
