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

Re: problem arising from early entry deletion

From: <cmpilato_at_collab.net>
Date: 2002-03-18 22:04:07 CET

Ben Collins-Sussman <sussman@collab.net> writes:

> Karl Fogel <kfogel@newton.ch.collab.net> writes:
>
> > But, we'll have to transmit the dirty bit to the server somehow. That
> > is, if you tell the server you have directory D at revision 9, and
> > then tell it you have the following children of D also at revision 9,
> > the server won't assume that any unmentioned children are deleted --
> > it will assume they're also at revision 9! :-) So state reports will
> > need to incorporate the dirty bit, probably not too difficult (?)...
>
> Yeah, very easy to do. Just add a new callback to the state-report
> language that means "this dir is dirty". The server interprets the
> command by removing all children of the directory. Then the client
> uses existing report language commands to rebuild all the children
> that it has.

/me needs make sure he understands what we're talking about here.

You're advocating this:

   copy into the txn revision X of dir
   if (dir is dirty):
     remove all of X's children
     foreach child of X the working copy has:
       add back the child to X

versus the old 'deleted flag' way:

   copy in revision X of dir
   foreach child of X the working doesn't have:
     remove child

Do I appear to understand both methods properly?

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Mon Mar 18 22:07:02 2002

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