... and if that sounded like me just mouthing off against lack of clear
docco, but not helping again, sorry but I'd really like to help.
- Julian
On Thu, 2010-01-28 at 14:51 +0000, Julian Foad wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-01-28 at 15:17 +0100, Neels J Hofmeyr wrote:
> > Greg Stein wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 16:51, Neels J Hofmeyr <ne...@elego.de> wrote:
> > >> Greg Stein wrote:
> > >> ...
> > >>> and recall that BASE == what you checked out from the repository.
> > >>> WORKING corresponds to added/removed/copied/moved nodes. For nodes in
> > >> Yes, I learnt this from Bert last week, and also that the current
> > >> *...@base*
> > >> commandline keyword refers to the "copy_from" of the *WORKING* tree for
> > >> all
> > >> the add-with-history schedules :)
> > >
> > > I don't think it is advisable to try to make any correlation between
> > > the cmdline markers and the names that we use internally for the
> > > trees.
> >
> > I agree, but of course, anyone new to the subject of svn_wc will
> > automatically have the association '@BASE' <-> 'BASE tree' popping up.
> > They're even both in all-caps.
> >
> > From our discussion on 'svn cat' behaviour (with Julian and Bert), I know
> > that @BASE does not always mean 'exactly what was checked out', but I think,
> > and it seems Julian agrees, that most users would expect @BASE to actually
> > mean strictly the BASE tree info.
>
> Oof - try not to say it this way round. I basically know what you mean,
> but the WC-NG "BASE tree" concept is the new one, and users do not have
> that as their point of reference.
>
> > Until told otherwise, I thought 'svn cat
> > f...@base' was buggy in that respect and tried to fix it :/
> >
> > It seems a little unfortunate to have this "naming ambiguity". But there we
> > go. Need to keep the current behavior. We can only add new keywords...
> >
> > For the record:
> > "@BASE" == svn_opt_revision_base
> > is NOT ALWAYS the same as
> > "BASE tree" == svn_wc__db_base_get_info
> >
> > (although they are the same when there is no 'new' history in the WORKING
> > tree)
> >
> > I humbly suggested "@ORIG" to represent the "BASE tree". Any comments on
> > actually implementing that? I'm not sure if it is really needed by people,
> > but it may help to explain what "@BASE" is (as opposed to "@ORIG").
>
> It sounds like you are suggesting a new keyword to represent a concept
> that the user already has and already has a keyword for ("@BASE").
>
> At least we need to figure out whether the existing "@BASE" keyword
> should mean "the thing I checked out" (I think it should) and any
> deviation from that should be treated as a bug. Only if we decide that
> the users really need an extra concept - being, I assume, "the thing you
> checked out, unless this is a copy, in which case the thing you copied"
> - would we need a new revision keyword.
>
> That discussion is entirely separate from WC-NG concerns.
>
> I agree that naming the WC-NG concepts with the same names as the
> user-level concepts has turned out to be confusing because of the way
> the concepts only partially match up, so it is worth considering
> renaming the WC-NG concepts, uncomfortable though that would be for
> those working on them.
>
> - Julian
>
>
> > >> (read_info's comment sounds like it:
> > >> " * The information returned comes from the BASE tree, as possibly
> > >> modified
> > >> * by the WORKING and ACTUAL trees. ")
> >
> > > Sounds like the comment could/should be improved.
> > +1
> > That could probably save us some amount of IRC and mail traffic :)
> >
> > ~Neels
>
>
