Greg Stein <gstein_at_gmail.com> writes:
> > Another problem is a copy of a mixed revision tree that includes base
> > nodes that are not-present. In 1.6 we represent these as "fake"
> > schedule deletes in the copy, so that they are explicitly deleted when
> > the copy is committed. This works but has problems, the main one
> > being that if one tries to revert the delete the full node information
> > is not available (because the not-present source doesn't have it).
> > Perhaps we should have a distinct presence for this type of node?
> > There are similar questions about absent and excluded nodes.
>
> on phone, so this will be terse, but wanted you to consider: I'd thought
> about the copy-of-not-present case, and think we should actually represent
> those nodes as excluded.
If the source has both excluded and not-present nodes, do we need to
distinguish them in the copy? Would we delete all the excluded nodes
in the copy when committing? There was a thread a few months ago
where a user reported that a wc-to-repo copy of a sparse working copy
didn't result in a sparse copy and asked if this was a bug; we didn't
really reach a consensus about what would be the correct behaviour.
--
Philip
Received on 2010-04-07 11:44:52 CEST