Malcolm Rowe wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 05, 2007 at 11:14:27AM -0700, Eric Gillespie wrote:
>> "C. Michael Pilato" <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
>>> This has always bothered me, too.
>>> But let me back a little more out of the box and ask -- is there any
>>> particular reason why we need the activities table at all? I mean, if al=
>>> it provides is a mapping of "DAV activity" to "Subversion txn" why can't =
>>> just use the Subversion txn name in the WebDAV protocol?
>> I thought the client picked the activity name, and used it in a
>> MKACTIVITY request?
> That's my understanding too, hence why we need some kind of mapping in
> the first place.
Yep, reading the code confirms this. We create a UUID.
Too bad we don't have a SQL backend... we could just create the txn and set
a property on it with the UUID (svn:dav-activity-uuid = UUID). Then
mod_dav_svn would merely need to query the repository for uncommitted
transactions with that property value.
C. Michael Pilato <email@example.com>
CollabNet <> www.collab.net <> Distributed Development On Demand
Received on Thu Apr 5 20:41:53 2007