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

Re: [PATCH] Revert r2504

From: Philip Martin <philip_at_codematters.co.uk>
Date: 2002-07-14 01:10:05 CEST

Justin Erenkrantz <jerenkrantz@apache.org> writes:

> Here's a quick reproduction recipe:
> svnadmin create `pwd`/testrepos
> svn co file://`pwd`/testrepos -d test
> cd test
> mkdir foo
> touch foo/bar
> mkdir foo/foo2
> touch foo/foo2/spaz
> svn add --recursive foo
> svn commit
> svn cp foo bar
> echo "I am on the branch" > bar/foo2/spaz
> svn commit

At last, a receipe, thanks! I'll add it to my regression tests. I
wonder why a subdir of the copied bar is getting locked as well as
bar? Is it meant to, or is that a bug?

> The second commit will fail with a wc-locked error. With the
> patch to enter svn_wc_process_committed() with no locks held
> (and r2504 in place), it does not fail.
> I believe r2504 needs to stay until svn_wc_process_committed() can
> handle the above case with the locks held. At that point, the

Yes, I see. r2504 isn't enough as you said, we also need to unlock. I
still think unlocking during a commit is wrong.

> assumption that we can enter that function with the locks is correct
> (and r2504 can be reverted). As I have been trying to point out,
> that is currently a false assumption. -- justin

I have a patch that implements the parent-child relationship in the
locks. This will allow the entire tree to be locked in the pre-commit
processing. I'll try the new testcase on it.

Philip Martin
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sun Jul 14 01:10:33 2002

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.