Eric Gillespie wrote:
>"C. Michael Pilato" <cmpilato@collab.net> writes:
>
>
>>so we're not strictly breaking contract. Just means svn_fs_merge()
>>isn't nearly as useful as it could be.
>>
>>
>
>I disagree. Long ago, and for unrelated reasons, I asked if we
>could change this behavior. To me, a double delete is clearly a
>conflict. You can't delete what ain't.
>
I don't find this argument convincing. Nobody is deleteing what's not
there; when tweaking a txn, you can delete what existed in the base
revision of the transaction, even if BASE is at that instant no longer
HEAD. The svn_fs_merge algorithm should allow this kind of double delete.
What _should_ be forbidden is attempting to delete "foo" if "foo"
doesn't exist in the txn's BASE; but that can be detected before
svn_fs_merge is ever called.
I think FSFS's behaviour is incorrect here.
>Furthermore, it has cost
>me real time in trying to explain to poor lusers why there are
>empty revisions with their name on them in our repositories.
>
>
This is a completely different issue. We can always make sure that empty
revisions are never committed, and do that gracefully without
inconveniencing the client with an out-of-date error.
-- Brane
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Thu Aug 4 08:53:24 2005