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

RE: svn_wc_status() unversioned semantics for non-wc files

From: Jay Freeman \(saurik\) <saurik_at_saurik.com>
Date: 2002-02-11 21:43:09 CET

Seeing as all files, even versioned files, are showing up as
"unversioned" to me due to weird Win32 issues, I'm not going to be able
to do a patch for this currently :). (I believe it is the / vs. \
issue, Subversion insists on letting /'s get down through the APR layer,
but even changing all of the /'s results in a filename that doesn't
exist, so maybe not.) I need to look more into that first.

Sincerely,
Jay Freeman (saurik)
saurik@saurik.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Karl Fogel [mailto:kfogel@newton.ch.collab.net]
Sent: Monday, February 11, 2002 2:13 PM
To: Jay Freeman (saurik)
Cc: dev@subversion.tigris.org
Subject: Re: svn_wc_status() unversioned semantics for non-wc files

"Jay Freeman \(saurik\)" <saurik@saurik.com> writes:
> I'd say we are saying promises that aren't useful :). The same thing
is
> returned for new files that have never been seen before in working
> copies as is for paths that aren't even in working copies. There
> doesn't seem to be an obvious way to differentiate /etc/passwd from
> /home/saurik/code/subversion/fileIDidntAddYet.

Ah. You want a code for "unversioned, but inside a versioned dir" or
something like that, is that right?

That seems reasonable, yeah. I mean, technically the caller could do
a separate status check on the parent of the original path, but since
the first status check has all the information needed to answer the
question completely, it might as well do so.

Got time to make a patch?

-K

> Sincerely,
> Jay Freeman (saurik)
> saurik@saurik.com
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Karl Fogel [mailto:kfogel@newton.ch.collab.net]
> Sent: Monday, February 11, 2002 12:03 PM
> To: Jay Freeman (saurik)
> Cc: dev@subversion.tigris.org
> Subject: Re: svn_wc_status() unversioned semantics for non-wc files
>
> "Jay Freeman \(saurik\)" <saurik@saurik.com> writes:
> > Is there a way to figure out if a file just has absolutely nothing
to
> do
> > with a working copy? I could have sworn those files used to return
> NULL
> > (with no error condition) from svn_wc_status(), but now they are
> > spitting out a status object where everything is set to unversioned.
>
> Doc string for svn_wc_status() says this:
>
> svn_wc_status_none : PATH is not versioned, and is either not
> present on disk, or is ignored by the
> svn:ignore property setting for PATH's
> parent directory.
>
> svn_wc_status_absent : PATH is versioned, but is missing from
> the working copy.
>
> svn_wc_status_unversioned : PATH is not versioned, but is
> present on disk and not being
> ignored (see above).
>
> Are we seeing behavior that breaks these promises, or are we seeing
> callers that aren't checking for these values correctly?
>
> -K
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sat Oct 21 14:37:06 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.