Re: Subversion semantics: no no-op changes

2019-10-15 Thread Branko Čibej
On 15.10.2019 09:10, Julian Foad wrote: > Branko Čibej wrote: >> [...] if the dump or the load step drops no-op >> changes, all existing working copies suddenly are no longer compatible > > No. They remain compatible. > > (Perhaps you are thinking of eliminating no-op commits and renumbering re

Re: Subversion semantics: no no-op changes

2019-10-15 Thread Julian Foad
Branko Čibej wrote: > [...] if the dump or the load step drops no-op > changes, all existing working copies suddenly are no longer compatible No. They remain compatible. (Perhaps you are thinking of eliminating no-op commits and renumbering revs. That's not what we're talking about.) - Jul

Re: Subversion semantics: no no-op changes

2019-10-14 Thread Branko Čibej
On 14.10.2019 10:07, Johan Corveleyn wrote: > On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 4:56 PM Julian Foad wrote: > ... >> Some of the existing svn protocols and APIs explicitly preserve certain >> no-op changes. For example, one user reported [2] that in their svn >> history (converted from CVS) they would "hate

Re: Subversion semantics: no no-op changes

2019-10-14 Thread Julian Foad
Eric S. Raymond wrote: > Then I no longer undersrand what we are talking about. OK, no worries. I was just hoping you'd twig what I'm clumsily trying to get at, but I'll have to write it up properly some time. - Julian

Re: Subversion semantics: no no-op changes

2019-10-14 Thread Eric S. Raymond
Julian Foad : > Eric S. Raymond wrote: > > Julian Foad : > > > [...] I have come across a number of kinds of what could > > > be called a "no-op change" or perhaps better described as "I touched this > > > but did not change its value". > [...] > > No-op commits are specifically awkward for > [...

Re: Subversion semantics: no no-op changes

2019-10-14 Thread Julian Foad
Eric S. Raymond wrote: Julian Foad : [...] I have come across a number of kinds of what could be called a "no-op change" or perhaps better described as "I touched this but did not change its value". [...] No-op commits are specifically awkward for [...] Eric, thank you for your thoughts on

Re: Subversion semantics: no no-op changes

2019-10-14 Thread Johan Corveleyn
On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 4:56 PM Julian Foad wrote: ... > Some of the existing svn protocols and APIs explicitly preserve certain > no-op changes. For example, one user reported [2] that in their svn > history (converted from CVS) they would "hate to lose" the historical > record that "svn log -v"

Re: Subversion semantics: no no-op changes

2019-10-12 Thread Eric S. Raymond
Julian Foad : > Hello Eric. > > TL;DR: I explain why I am convinced no-op changes don't belong in the > Subversion versioning semantics. With your work on Subversion repository > and dump stream semantics, is this something you can offer a view on? I > have previously failed to convince the dev

Re: Subversion semantics: no no-op changes

2019-10-11 Thread Daniel Shahaf
Julian Foad wrote on Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 15:56:31 +0100: > Hello Eric. Not to preëmpt Eric, but may I share my thoughts too? > In conclusion, I consider svn would be a better system -- more predictable, > testable, composable, etc.; more generally dependable -- and would lose no > significant va

Subversion semantics: no no-op changes

2019-10-11 Thread Julian Foad
Hello Eric. TL;DR: I explain why I am convinced no-op changes don't belong in the Subversion versioning semantics. With your work on Subversion repository and dump stream semantics, is this something you can offer a view on? I have previously failed to convince the developer community [1].