Ed, thanks for this. Here are lots of comments and questions. If you
could update the doc wherever it makes sense, think about the hard parts
and come up with proposals for them, and ask any questions wherever it's
not clear, that would be great.
On Fri, 2010-02-05, Ed wrote:
> +OUTLINE OF A
> +
>
[Philipp Marek]
> No, "text" means "data" here, as opposed to "ctime" for "inode time".
> In the WC library there was the data often named "text", that's where
> it comes from.
>
> (I'd hope that this name doesn't hurt ... and nowadays it's used in
> at least 3 programs [svntar, fsvs, and svn+bra
Hello Julian!
> Due to the potentially ubiquitous nature of this property, some
> consideration needs to be given to when and where the mtime property
> modification is reported for the affected files and folders.
>
> Sometime? Always? Never?
With the current ra layer the answer would probably
> > Ed wrote:
> > > Btw, regarding the RFC I submitted. Was I supposed to send it as
> > > a diff, or a text file? (I realize it is a moot point right now,
> > > but for future reference, I think it would be nice to get this
> > > clarified. :)).
As we don't have a base version in the repositor
Hello Ed!
Ed wrote:
Is my spec similar to yours? With Bert's comments in mind, the
current spec should be changed to reflect that if the mtime property
doesn't exist then svn shouldn't even bother with adding it.
Well, a few rounds of discussion more and we'll end up with my
implementation,
> -Original Message-
> From: Geoff Rowell [mailto:geoff.row...@gmail.com]
> Sent: zaterdag 6 februari 2010 14:26
> To: Ed
> Cc: Philipp Marek; dev@subversion.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [RFC] MTime functional specifications (v2.0)
> >
> > I still feel t
On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 9:42 PM, Ed wrote:
> Philipp Marek wrote:
>>
>> Hello Ed!
>>
>> On Freitag, 5. Februar 2010, Ed wrote:
>>>
>>> As usual, thanks for the prompt comments.
>>
>> I think I have to apologize - I seem to cause confusion.
>
> No. No need for apologies. Just my tendency to be
> co
Philipp Marek wrote:
Hello Ed!
On Freitag, 5. Februar 2010, Ed wrote:
As usual, thanks for the prompt comments.
I think I have to apologize - I seem to cause confusion.
No. No need for apologies. Just my tendency to be
confused easily. :)
All of those patches I was referring to were you
Bert Huijben wrote:
Pardon me for being a bit dense. Do you mean that generated binaries
(or binaries in general?) should not have the 'mtime' stored?
No ...
If you've got some source files, you *don't* want mtime stored for them,
so
that "make" knows what to re-compile.
But if you want to ke
> -Original Message-
> From: Philipp Marek [mailto:philipp.ma...@emerion.com]
> Sent: vrijdag 5 februari 2010 9:48
> To: dev@subversion.apache.org
> Cc: Ed
> Subject: Re: [RFC] MTime functional specifications (v2.0)
>
> Hello Ed!
>
> On Freitag, 5. Februa
Hello Ed!
On Freitag, 5. Februar 2010, Ed wrote:
> As usual, thanks for the prompt comments.
I think I have to apologize - I seem to cause confusion.
> All of those patches I was referring to were your patches as included in
> the issue 1256 attachment list. Just a cursory query. If there exist
Hi Philipp,
As usual, thanks for the prompt comments.
+Issue #1256 was entered into the Subversion issue tracker on 24th April
+2003 and has been opened since then. A few patches have been submitted;
There's even a branch with a full implementation in the subversion
repository, and it's been
Hello Ed,
some more comments.
On Freitag, 5. Februar 2010, Ed wrote:
>+Issue #1256 was entered into the Subversion issue tracker on 24th April
> +2003 and has been opened since then. A few patches have been submitted;
There's even a branch with a full implementation in the subversion
repository
13 matches
Mail list logo
