VCS: Proposal for a change of arguments to remove(), checkout() and import()

[Andreas Pakulat]

On 30.03.09 20:43:07, Fabian Wiesel wrote:
> 2009/3/27 Andreas Pakulat <apaku at gmx.de>
> > On 27.03.09 10:50:23, Fabian Wiesel wrote:
> >  > This may be a reason why VcsMapping came into existence, but it doesn't
> > > negate the problems I cited.
> > > What does one gain by batching all the checkouts? And is it sensible to
> > > require all but one VCS to re-implement said capability?
> >
> > A VCS doesn't need to re-implement that capability. In fact it shouldn't
> > and (unless I was drunk when writing it) Subversion only uses the first
> > entry from the mapping and ignores everything else.
> 
> I think, that's the worst solution. Not only breaks the abstraction a
> interface is supposed to provide, such an
> implementation also falsely claims, that it executed the command I requested
> correctly, while it didn't.
> The only reason, why this hasn't failed fataly is, because all the callers
> are just using the subset of the interface I suggested.

I've thought quite a while about this (hmm, about 4 days it seems :) And
I think I have to agree, maybe the existing checkout method really
should just take a KUrl for a local location and a second parameter
which is a VcsLocation that needs to be a remote location.

And if anybody ever implements perforce he can provide IPerforceVcs with
an advanced checkout method as needed.

So if you're willing feel free to adjust the interface + implementations
according to what I said above. If not, please at least file a bugreport
so we don't forget about this :)

Andreas 

-- 
Your true value depends entirely on what you are compared with.