[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: single file switching (was: svn commit: rev 1163 - trunk/subversion/include trunk/subversion/libsvn_ra_local trunk/subversion/mod_dav_svn trunk/subversion/libsvn_repos)

From: Ben Collins-Sussman <sussman_at_collab.net>
Date: 2002-02-04 14:57:27 CET

Greg Stein <gstein@lyra.org> writes:

> I still don't think that switching a file makes any sense. It introduces a
> TON of questions throughout our codebase now.

You keep saying this, but aren't giving specifics.

> Even something as simple as "svn stat" will create the question of
> "but wait, what repository is that from?" And that "svn stat -u" for
> a single directory could create a bunch of sessions.

By this argument, Greg, we shouldn't allow 'svn switch' at all.
You're describing a complexity of having *any* disjoint URLs in the
working copy at all.

And you're confusing two issues here:

   1. Allowing 'disjoint' urls in a working copy

   2. Allowing urls from different repositories in a working copy

Issue #2 we agreed could be punted for now, certainly. When users
'svn switch', they'll only be allowed to switch to paths within the
same repository anyway... dir_delta doesn't yet span repositories.

But regarding issue #1, this is going to happen if we allow 'svn
switch' to exist at all. The thing is, Mike/Karl/I have already
walked through all the hairy details of exactly how commits and
updates are going to deal with disjoint urls. And it's all documented
in the last section of notes/merging-and-switching.txt.

In a nutshell: for updates, we're going to build 2 transactions that
contains disjoint things linked in, so that the tree delta applies
cleanly to the working copy. For commits, we're going to need to
collect all changed paths (and urls) in memory, so that we can start
the commit-drive at at the common parent url.

So please, please, please... refute this plan. Or explain why
allowing a disjoint file url is *any* different than allowing a
disjoint directory url. I can't see the difference.

> 2) just use RA->get_file()
> And yank all this reporter tweaking out.

I agree with you here. My last commit was the wrong approach. I'm
going to revert all that stuff; it will be *much* cleaner to just do
a full get_file(), rather than trying to push confusing semantics
through an editor. Thanks for the dose of reality. :-)

To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sat Oct 21 14:37:04 2006

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.

This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.