On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 18:27, Julian Foad <[email protected]> wrote: > Greg Stein wrote: >> Why do some names use text_base and others use pristine? Aren't those >> the same thing? > > The ones using 'pristine' are the ones added by Hyrum's SVN_EXPERIMENTAL > code, which, for the moment, run in parallel with the old ones, and then > later will replace the old ones. I haven't settled on which name is > more suitable for the final version, but it should be just one not a > mixture of both. At the moment, the names occur in pairs like these: > > { text_base_abspath, pristine_abspath } are the paths to two separate > copies of the same content; > > { text_base_checksum_md5, pristine_checksum_sha1 } are two different > kinds of checksum for the same content; we will probably need to keep > both of them. > > So you're right, they mean the same thing logically, and only have this > temporary distinction of WC-1 vs. WC-NG. In the interest of naming > clarity, I'll think of a better way. Maybe: > > { text_base_abspath, pristine_abspath } - these two will be resolved > to just one very soon so I'll leave this dual naming for now; > > { text_base_checksum_md5, pristine_checksum_sha1 } - I'll modify the > patch before committing it, to make both of these say 'text_base' (or > perhaps both say 'pristine'). > > Good?
Whatever you think best! I've raised my concern... Cheers, -g
