Could we tie it into cleanup? Then other tools like TortoiseSVN,
Subclipse, AnkhSVN could invoke it too.
On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 6:30 PM, Julian Foad <julian.foad_at_wandisco.com> wrote:
> I'm planning to commit the attached wc-db-verification-1.patch, subject
> to any advice on how to best fit it in to the code base or other
> concerns, in order to get a DB "self-check" function started.
>
> I think we need something like this. Earlier today I found that "svn
> status" showed I had a clean, single-rev WC, while "svnversion" said it
> was mixed-rev and switched. Investigation showed there were orphaned
> base node rows in the DB which weren't seen by "svn st" but were seen by
> "svnversion". I'm not interested in how that particular state came to
> be, as I've run hundreds of buggy trunk builds on this WC over many
> months. What I do want is to be able to run a set of checks on a DB
> that detects basic rule violations like that.
>
> Decisions about when and how to run it can come later. Of course if we
> plan to run it frequently and automatically that would mean we'd want to
> make sure it only did fast checks and is efficiently coded whereas if it
> remains a manual intervention for devs then that's no concern. Thoughts
> about this are welcome too.
>
> - Julian
>
>
--
Thanks
Mark Phippard
http://markphip.blogspot.com/
Received on 2011-05-10 01:16:29 CEST