On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 05:35, Hyrum K. Wright
> On Apr 1, 2009, at 8:46 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
>> Hey Hyrum,
>> I'm trying to work out the discrepancy in how we handle the COPIED
>> flag to satisfy both revert/17 and update/54. I figured out an
>> approach, coded something up, and it works. But then I started
>> I should probably stop doing that. :-P
> Yeah. I was thinking today that it's amazing that we're on the brink of
> getting >1100 test cases working with a *completely new* entries storage
> paradigm. That's pretty crazy.
hehe... yeah :-)
> But I'm scared about the umpteen billion of
> other weird cases which we don't test, and at some point, the workaround
> hacks will bite us.
> Then again, we can only go so far to ensure perfect compat. We can't, nor
> should we be perfectly bug compatible.
Agreed. I think if we get the 1100 tests to pass, plus the extra test
for the read_entries() paths that we've talked about... then we've
done well more than I think anybody would ask for. And I think that's
just about Right :-)
>> After consideration, I'm thinking a new presence value of
>> "base-deleted". In the above two possibilities:
>> 1) presence="base-deleted" means A/B/foo refers to the BASE
>> 2) presence="not-present" means A/B/foo is a deletion of A/C/foo post-copy
>> Everywhere we talk about not-present, we'd have to extend a bit, and
>> probably adjust scan_working and crap.
> This sounds reasonable. Are there additional scenarios where we're going to
> have to think about even more presence values, or does this just about cover
Oh, this should be it. Recognize that our schema fully supports our
client-side operation today. That's why we've been able to come so
"should be" isn't "definitely" though. This base-deleted issue has
arisen because we're near the boundary of simply storing
representational stuff and that of *intent*. That is, what to do at
commit time. When we revamp the commit logic, then we may discover
other situations. We may also find a schema change is in order to
better support libsvn_client operations.
>> Oh, and since A/B "shadows" a BASE node, then we implicitly know that
>> a deletion happened first, before <whatever> brought A/B into the
>> WORKING tree there (a replacement).
> Sure, but will this always be the case, or are there cases where the we
> could get into a situation where the parent isn't shadowing a BASE node, and
> therefore can't make this implicit assumption? I can't think of any.
Every BASE node needs a parent. Therefore, if a WORKING node has a
parent WORKING node, then it, too, shadows a BASE node. We should be
Okay. I'm going to start non the base-deleted presence value, then
return to the read_entries() testing.
(there is also a read_entries() simplification that I'd like to do;
left a comment in there in my last commit)
Received on 2009-04-02 12:40:53 CEST