On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 10:06, Apache subversion Wiki
<commits_at_subversion.apache.org> wrote:
>...
> + == Problem Cases ==
> +
> + Move A to B:
> +
> + || op-depth || local-relpath || presence || revision || repos || moved-to ||
> + || 0 || A || normal || 1 || A || ||
> + || 0 || A/f || normal || 1 || A/f || ||
> + || 1 || A || base-deleted || 1 || A || B ||
> + || 1 || A/f || base-deleted || 1 || A/f || ||
> + || 1 || B || normal || 1 || A || ||
> + || 1 || B/f || normal || 1 || A/f || ||
> +
> + Delete B/f and replace with something copied from elsewhere:
> +
> + || op-depth || local-relpath || presence || revision || repos || moved-to ||
> + || 0 || A || normal || 1 || A || ||
> + || 0 || A/f || normal || 1 || A/f || ||
> + || 1 || A || base-deleted || 1 || A || B ||
> + || 1 || A/f || base-deleted || 1 || A/f || ||
> + || 1 || B || normal || 1 || A || ||
> + || 1 || B/f || normal || 1 || A/f || ||
> + || 2 || B/f || normal || 1 || X || ||
Wouldn't the B/f line at op_depth==1 have not-present to indicate that
it was deleted?
> +
> + Now update A and go through the mixed-revision base tree: we can't represent the mixed-revision copy since that would require B/f at op-depth=2 to record both A/f_at_2 and X_at_1.
Hm? I would expect the A/f_at_2 to be in the op_depth==1 line, and B/f at
op_depth==2 to continue to refer to X_at_1.
Cheers,
-g
Received on 2012-04-27 18:32:38 CEST