Re: problem arising from early entry deletion

On Mon, Mar 18, 2002 at 03:08:04PM -0500, Greg Hudson wrote:
> On Mon, 2002-03-18 at 11:49, Karl Fogel wrote:
> > > In other words, if a directory is marked "dirty", then when we send
> > > our update state-report to the server, we enumerate *all* immediate
> > > children in the report, just like CVS does all the time.
> > >
> > > I like this solution -- it's much simpler to implement and maintain.
> > > Feels cleaner to me.
> >
> > I like it too!
>
> Just for the record, it doesn't feel cleaner to me, although it may be
> simpler to implement. It means we have two completely separate
> mechanisms for tracking the state of mixed working directories. I'm not
> even 100% convinced that the new method is entirely correct, though I
> can't think of any screw cases which mess it up. It was a whole lot
> easier to see that the old method was correct.
>
> So, -0 here, but I think there were enough +1s to overrule me.

I'm with Greg here. It feels much cleaner to say "I've got directory FOO at
rev 9, but not subdir BAR." That is an accurate report of the WC state.

The dirty flag means you have to figure out the missing items by process of
elimination.

I'll throw in a -0, too.

Cheers,
-g

-- 
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org