On 13.03.2013 17:29, Julian Foad wrote: > I (Julian Foad) wrote: > > [...] >> PROPOSAL >> >> - svn_ra_do_update2(): revise to svn_ra_do_update3(), add the >> 'ignore_ancestry' option there too, and use two pools while we're at >> >> it. Track this change in the RA vtable 'update' method, protocols, etc. >> >> - svn_wc__get_switch_editor(): add 'adds_as_modification'. >> >> - svn_client__update_internal(), svn_client_update4(): add >> 'ignore_ancestry'. >> >> - svn_client__switch_internal(), svn_client_switch4(): add >> 'adds_as_modification'. >> >> >> RATIONALE >> >> Do I really have to explain why Consistency is Good? > Consistency alone doesn't require us to add the options where missing; we > could also remove them where present. These options exist because we decided > at some point that we wanted them, and I think we still want them and we > definitely still need them for backward compatibility.
Actually, if we're revving an API, it's just as valid to /remove/ options as it is to add them. IMO. The backwards-compat behaviour can be encapsulated in the implementation. So, for example, we could go ahead and remove the ignore-ancestry option from switch. -- Brane -- Branko Čibej Director of Subversion | WANdisco | www.wandisco.com
