Julian Foad <julian.foad_at_wandisco.com> writes:
> On Mon, 2010-10-25, Philip Martin wrote:
>> per tree).
>> So the delete code ends up looking like
>> deleted = svn_wc__db_op_delete(path)
>> for name in deleted:
>> run workqueue
>> Does that sound sensible?
>> Finally, while this mail refers to delete there are similar problems in
>> other functions: revert, copy, etc.
> +1 to the basic idea that the DB API is responsible for making a whole
> logical change, and the outside code shouldn't have to duplicate the
> I've started to use a part of this pattern in the "copy" operation,
Once I started implementing it I realised that it didn't really solve
the particular delete problems I was facing. It might well be suitable
The problem with delete is that the user can manually run delete on some
or all of the sub-trees, starting at the tip and working towards the
parent. Thus the final delete of the parent has to be able to cope with
all parts of the tree already being deleted.
Received on 2010-10-28 18:26:55 CEST