Re: CVS update: subversion STACK

Greg Stein wrote:

> On Mon, Nov 27, 2000 at 11:03:44PM +0100, Branko Cibej wrote:
>
>> Note: multiple adds/deletes in a directory must be applied atomically,
>> too, by the same reasoning.
>
>
> These are different.
>
> 1) corrupting a single file is bad
> 2) cross-file dependency problems due to partial updates
>
> In the former, we have corruption. In the latter, we just have a
> synchronization issue. SVN does not need to make (2) atomic because the user
> can always run an update again (or back up to a sync'd set). Heck, what if
> the user updates a single file, but leaves other? Or users commit changes
> that don't sync properly.

I don't quite agree. In the second case, you're not updating the added
(or deleted) file -- you're updating the directory. Remember, this isn't
CVS -- directories are real objects in Subversion. So what you're
describing as as single event actually has two parts:

    * update the directory (that's mostly metadata in the working copy)
    * update the added/deleted files.
      
It's becomes a bit involved if the deleted file is locally modified, but
that's only a question of what constitutes a conflict for directory updates.

-- 
Brane �ibej
    home:   <brane_at_xbc.nu>             http://www.xbc.nu/brane/
    work:   <branko.cibej_at_hermes.si>   http://www.hermes-softlab.com/
     ACM:   <brane_at_acm.org>            http://www.acm.org/