In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Tue, 19 Feb 2008 18:26:23 -0500, "Zack Weinberg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
zackw> You've run afoul of this, I think: zackw> zackw> // FIXME: this uses depth+1 because the old semantics of depth=0 were zackw> // something like "the current directory and its immediate children". it zackw> // seems somewhat more reasonable here to use depth=0 to mean "exactly zackw> // this directory" and depth=1 to mean "this directory and its immediate zackw> // children" zackw> zackw> The "old" behavior has been preserved in the name of backward zackw> compatibility. I'd have no objection to calling a flag day and zackw> introducing the more sensible semantics you suggest (which are the zackw> same as the ones suggested in the restrictions.cc comments). What do zackw> other people think? I have no problem with that in itself. Perhaps one should consider renaming --depth to something else, so the change becomes more blatant. I don't have any other name in mind right now, but it's something to think of... Cheers, Richard ----- Please consider sponsoring my work on free software. See http://www.free.lp.se/sponsoring.html for details. -- Richard Levitte [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://richard.levitte.org/ "When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up." -- C.S. Lewis _______________________________________________ Monotone-devel mailing list Monotone-devel@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/monotone-devel
