On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 07:53, Greg Stein <gst...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 07:42, Philip Martin <philip.mar...@wandisco.com> > wrote: >> Greg Stein <gst...@gmail.com> writes: >> >>> Thus, the notion of moved_here is not all that relevant because I >>> would hope this function won't survive to the point where we start >>> recording moves in wc_db (so, thus, we'll never record/generate that >>> status). >> >> I don't understand that paragraph. Do we record moves now? Are we >> going to record moves in the future? You seem to imply that we will >> in future record moves and simultaneously that we won't generate a >> svn_wc__db_status_moved_here. It doesn't really seem to make sense. > > We do *not* record moves today. > > We *will* at some point in the future, which is most likely *after* > the 1.7 release. > > The node functions will *hopefully* die *before* 1.7. > > Thus, moved_here is not a strongly relevant concept for the node > functions, *unless* we decide a given function's semantic is truly > material and should survive as a (semi?) public WC API for use by > libsvn_client.
And that said, we *are* trying to accommodate that returned status wherever possible. As much code as possible should be reading/expecting it to happen. It just won't for a while. I think my point is that we can cut corners in the node functions, in this particular case. Cheers, -g
