Re: Two update notes

On Tue, Sep 04, 2001 at 02:52:01PM -0500, cmpilato@collab.net wrote:
> Kevin Pilch-Bisson <kevin@pilch-bisson.net> writes:
>
> > > Believe it or not, this is by design. I seem to remember Karl wanting
> > > to break people of the habit of using `svn up' to revert changes to a
> > > file (since we have `svn revert').
> >
> > Ahhh, that makes sense. Perhaps we should print a warning message to this
> > effect? At least temporarily.
>
> Oops. Ben tells me we never actually implemented this policy. You
> *should* be getting those files back (and in fact, I just watched Ben
> do this using ra_local with no problem). Not sure what the issue is
> here, then.

Alright, the source of this seems to be in
libsvn_wc/adm_crawler.c:svn_wc_crawl_revisions. We have:

if (entry_kind == svn_node_dir)
        report_revisions
else if ((entry->kind == svn_node_file) && (entry->revision != base_rev))
        reporter->set_path

within report revisions itself we check the on disk state of the file, but
we don't within svn_wc_crawl_revisions. I'll check it out more.

-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Kevin Pilch-Bisson                    http://www.pilch-bisson.net
     "Historically speaking, the presences of wheels in Unix
     has never precluded their reinvention." - Larry Wall
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~