On 15 Feb 2022, Nathan Hartman wrote:
How about:
Remote BASE
(as opposed to Local BASE).
The idea here being that BASE is a concept with which users
should be
familiar, while pristines are part of Subversion's implementation
under the hood.
Getting closer, I think! "base" seems like a good word -- more
familiar to most users than "pristine" would be, and the meaning
really is pretty spot-on, since we've been supporting "-rBASE"
since forever.
As a command-line option for per-WC behavior, it might be
something like this on checkout:
--local-base=no
When the option is not provided, the default would be "yes" of
course (in a sense, it's been defaulting to "yes" for decades :-)
).
As a configuration option, it would be something like this:
### Section for configuring working copies.
[working-copy]
no-local-base-FOO = SOME_VALUE
Now, I don't know what FOO and SOME_VALUE are yet -- they will
vary, because we'll want various behaviors. Sometimes you'll want
to say "no local base when checking out from this particular
repository". Later, when we support finer-grained local base
control than just per-WC, we'll want to be able to say "no local
base for files larger than size X". And maybe we'll want to say
"no local base for files that have the following property or
prop/val combination". E.g.,
### Section for configuring working copies.
[working-copy]
no-local-base-repositories = [LIST OF REGEXPS TO MATCH AGAINST]
no-local-base-properties = BLAH BLAH
no-local-base-size-threshold = 1GB
no-local-base-FOO = etc, etc
We don't have to figure out that config UI right now. I'm just
trying to figure out the primary user-facing terminology for the
feature, and maybe "local base" is it.
Thoughts?
Best regards,
-Karl
