On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 01:39:45AM +0300, Daniel Shahaf wrote: > gst...@apache.org wrote on Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 14:45:02 -0000: > > Author: gstein > > Date: Wed Jan 25 14:45:01 2012 > > New Revision: 1235773 > > > > URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1235773&view=rev > > Log: > > Add some clarifications to the Ev2 documentation, based on some IRC > > discussions with danielsh. > > > > * subversion/include/svn_editor.h: > > (...): add a section on "Timing and State" to clarify how the > > editing calls refer to the receiver's current state. provide a > > couple examples. > > > > Modified: > > subversion/trunk/subversion/include/svn_editor.h > > > > Modified: subversion/trunk/subversion/include/svn_editor.h > > URL: > > http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/subversion/trunk/subversion/include/svn_editor.h?rev=1235773&r1=1235772&r2=1235773&view=diff > > ============================================================================== > > --- subversion/trunk/subversion/include/svn_editor.h (original) > > +++ subversion/trunk/subversion/include/svn_editor.h Wed Jan 25 14:45:01 > > 2012 > > @@ -329,6 +329,19 @@ extern "C" { > > * for these items are invoked. > > * \n\n > > * > > + * <h3>Timing and State</h3> > > + * The calls made by the driver to alter the state in the receiver are > > + * based on the receiver's *current* state, which includes all prior > > changes > > + * made during the edit. > > + * > > Should we change this to say: > > + * <h3>Timing and State</h3> > + * The calls made by the driver to alter the state in the receiver are > + * based on the receiver's *initial* state, which excludes all prior > changes > + * made during the edit. > > ? > > I've reviewed the IRC logs referred to in the log msg [1], as well as > today's, and I don't see a good reason to stick with the "refers to > current state"; and I do see a good reason to use "refers to initial > state": that's closer to the final copyfrom (or moved-from) info. > I also find "refers to the initial state" more intuitive. >
There was some more discussion on IRC today. It involved the following case: svn mv A B; svn mv B/C D; svn ci; which could be represented in Ev2 as: move(A, B); move(B/C, D); or as: move(A/C, D); move(B, D); It's not clear to me yet which of the two options is preferred, or whether there are more options. Daniel > Daniel > > [1] http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/svn-dev?date=2012-01-25 > [2] http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/svn-dev?date=2013-06-26 > > > + * Example: copy A to B; set-props on A; copy A to C. The props on C > > + * should reflect the updated properties of A. > > + * > > + * Example: mv A@N to B; mv C@M to A. The second move cannot be marked as > > + * a "replacing" move since it is not replacing A. The node at A was moved > > + * away. The second operation is simply moving C to the now-empty path > > + * known as A. > > + * > > * <h3>Paths</h3> > > * Each driver/receiver implementation of this editor interface must > > * establish the expected root path for the paths sent and received via the > > > >
