On 15 Feb 2022, Nathan Hartman wrote:
Possibly bikeshedding a bit, but this seems to return to the idea
of
"turning on" what we are (tentatively) calling "local
base"... IMHO it
would be better if it were reversed to "--remote-base=yes" to
convey
that this is non-default and opt-in. (Or possibly allow both.)
The reason I shy away from the "--remote-base=foo" name is that
there is *always* a remote base anyway. Even when one has
pristines locally, there is also a remote pristine available (and
indeed the server makes use of it sometimes). So that name would
be misleading, and for more knowledgeable users, even confusing.
Alternatively...
As a command line switch, how about:
"svn checkout --base=local $REPO $WC"
or
"svn checkout --base=remote $REPO $WC"
This implies a symmetry between control of local-base presence and
control of remote-base presence, but there is no such symmetry.
The only thing this feature can ever control is the presence of
local bases, so I think it would be a mistake to say anything
about remote bases when addressing it.
Best regards,
-Karl
