Peter Samuelson wrote:
[Julian Foad]
Finally, but importantly, why are we only talking about contracting
keywords?
We're talking about any change to the svn:keywords property - both
adding and removing keywords.
The original post on the Subversion dev list did not mention adding, but it's
good that we are talking about it now.
For the add case, libsvn_wc already does
the right thing and expands keywords in the WC (though at commit time,
not at propset/propedit time). Doing it at propset/propedit time is
probably not worthwhile, since (at least for $Id$) the string will
change at commit time anyway.
Surely, if we expect 'svn' to contract a keyword when we remove its
name from the property, we should also expect it to expand it when we
insert its name in the property.
Doesn't that happen today? Or do you mean doing it immediately rather
than deferring it to the next commit?
I meant doing it immediately, and I was asking because I thought that's what
was being proposed for contracting a deleted keyword, but I hope (and it now
seems) that's not the case.
As far as I can tell, we're pretty much in agreement that the current behaviour
is right. The fundamental point is:
A keyword absent from 'svn:keywords' does NOT mean that Subversion
should contract it, it means that Subversion should not touch it
nor even require that it parses syntactically.
So we're left with the lesser question:
* Should we provide an easy one-step facility to contract and then ignore a
keyword?
My answer: no, I don't see any good reason for doing so. I recommend the bug
report be closed as "fixed", since the definite bug (in diff) noted in the
original Debian report has been fixed and I don't think further action is required.
- Julian
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
