Julian Foad wrote on Wed, Mar 16, 2022 at 19:49:38 +0000: > Daniel Shahaf wrote: > > [...]I suspect I'm still missing something. > > I suggest you re-read the issue 4892 use case: > https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/subversion/branches/pristines-on-demand-issue4892/notes/i525/i525-use-case-4892-minimal-update.txt > > The request is to break the original design's invariant for this case.
By only hydrating files that have been updated repository-side. How will small, modified files that _haven't_ been remotely modified get hydrated, then? The logic is the same for small and large files, IIUC. Also, why is this specific to «svn update»? It seems to apply equally well to «svn diff» without further arguments, since the "large" files are presumed to be undiffable, but the issue, the notes, and the OP of this thread all treat «svn update» as a _sui generis_ case. If the issue does apply not only to 'update' but also to 'diff', that suggests we should look for a solution that applies to both of them (e.g., exclude "large" files from being recursed into by default, or make it so "large" files _never_ get hydrated). Sorry, I feel like I must be asking questions that must have already been discussed, but I _have_ read the threads and I still don't know the answers to these. Cheers, Daniel
