Neels J Hofmeyr wrote: [...] > I'm trying to say: Independently from wc-ng or its naming, I think that the > commandline keyword "@BASE" should mean "the thing I checked out". > > But using 'svn cat' and 'svn diff', I see that "@BASE" currently means > "the thing you checked out, unless this is a copy, in which case the thing > you copied". (!!!) > > So I'd agree with your comment that we should change "@BASE" to mean "the > thing I checked out", but Bert pointed out to me that that would break some > use cases some people already depend on. > > Furthermore, if I was being naming-purist, I would change "@BASE", and then > I'd introduce a new keyword for those people who depend on "the thing you > checked out, unless this is a copy, in which case the thing you copied". But > then we would technically change the API in a very confusing way, and yada > yada. Although if everyone agrees, I'd do it :) > > On the other hand, it might be good to introduce a new keyword that always > represents "the thing I checked out", regardless of copy_from schedules. > Then we'd still have the gruesome naming inconsistency between "@BASE" and > the "BASE-tree" -- when there is a "BASE tree", sometimes getting "@BASE" > from the "WORKING tree" just seems odd; I'm not supposed to make such > associations, sorry :) --, but this would probably cause much less trouble.
Thanks for the full explanation of what you were thinking. That is a sane option. I'm not 100% sure which way I really want the "@BASE" notation to go. Before making up my mind I'd like to catalogue the current behaviour of all client commands and see if there is a clear majority. - Julian
