Re: [Monotone-devel] restrictions rewrite

[Derek Scherger]

Richard Levitte - VMS Whacker wrote:
> In message <address@hidden> on Thu, 23 Feb 2006 21:44:35 -0700, Derek Scherger 
> <address@hidden> said:
>
> derek> There is also another branch off of this called 
> derek> net.venge.monotone.restrictions.wildcard-paths where I've
> derek> replaced the --depth argument with optional recursive
> derek> directories using a dir/... syntax suggested by njs on the
> derek> wiki.
>
> I fail to see how the dir/... syntax can replace --depth.  How do you
> express something like 'monotone log dir --depth=3' using the
> recursive directory syntax?  I personally have no problem with having

you don't!  ;)

indeed this new syntax is in some ways less powerful than the --depth 
option.

> --depth removed, but I think you need to think about the consequences
> of removing it.
>
> Also, the ... thing, is it only meant to be at the end of a path
> specification, or is it intended to be mixed in, like dir/.../foo.c,
> or dir1/.../dir2/dir3.../dir4/foo.c, to take a more complicated
> possibility?

at the moment "..." only means "recursive" at the end of a path.

> derek> Without the trailing "/..." a directory could match only
> derek> itsself (--depth=0) or possibly itsself and all of its
> derek> immediate children non-recursively (--depth=1). Both of these
> derek> seem like useful cases particularly in the "required parent"
> derek> directory cases so some feedback on this would be great.
>
> The more I think about it, the harder it is to decide.  Maybe this
> indicates that --depth shouldn't be removed after all?

the case I wondered about was "--depth=N foo foo/bar" ... (i.e. the 
depth applies to nested directories) and this seemed kind of odd too. in 
this case I think the new syntax is somewhat more powerful than --depth 
because you can mark particular directories recursive while leaving 
others non-recursive.

my general impression is that -depth is a reaction to cvs's -l (local) 
and -R (recursive) options but it's not entirely well thought out. the 
current (old) restrictions code takes --depth=N with no paths to mean 
"--depth=N ." which surprised me a bit and made me wonder about what the 
appropriate interaction between --depth and --exclude is.

Cheers,
Derek