[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: Do we better tolerate obstructed updates?

From: Hyrum K. Wright <hyrum_wright_at_mail.utexas.edu>
Date: Wed, 7 Jul 2010 20:31:15 -0600

On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 1:32 PM, Bert Huijben <bert_at_qqmail.nl> wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: hyrum_at_hyrumwright.org [mailto:hyrum_at_hyrumwright.org] On Behalf Of
>> Hyrum K. Wright
>> Sent: woensdag 7 juli 2010 6:03
>> To: Subversion Development
>> Subject: Do we better tolerate obstructed updates?
>>
>> The bindings tests are currently failing, and there appear to be two
>> root causes.  One of them, causing test failures in both JavaHL and
>> swig-rb, is that the tests expect an error with an operation that used
>> to cause an obstruction, such as update, but those errors are no
>> longer being returned.  Has something changed recently which allows us
>> to better tolerate obstructions?
>
> In preparation of making this 1.6.x error into obstruction conflicts later,
> we started skipping obstructing files, recording that by adding a
> not-present marker in BASE_NODE (and maybe some tree conflict in some cases,
> but I don't know about that part?).
>
> When we have the central db+pristine store ready we can switch to just
> continuing the BASE_NODE update, while adding an obstruction conflict to
> record that the in-wc file is not the real wc-file.

So, what is the appropriate change to the tests, which used to expect
an error, but which is now not thrown?

-Hyrum
Received on 2010-07-08 04:31:53 CEST

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.