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

Re: Fixing issue #842

From: <cmpilato_at_collab.net>
Date: 2002-08-03 08:31:09 CEST

"Bill Tutt" <rassilon@lyra.org> writes:

> Good point. This new CopyID is a lazily instantiated copy. We knew the
> user meant to have us do this earlier, but since Subversion is so lazy
> it finally got around to doing it now.


> * What should the new CopyID's source information be when A2/foo2 gets
> modified?
> This should be A/foo2 and the TxnID of the A/foo -> A/foo2 copy
> operation.

Hm... Determining that PATH is gonna be a booger. I mean, in general
the question "Given a node-revision-id, find its path" can be real
pain. I can't help but wonder if we actually *need* to try to
determine the source path though. Let me put it another way -- at the
time we make this special copy happen, I don't believe we have any
more knowledge than we would have were to try to derive the source
path well into the future. If we don't need the path, and we want a
way to denote "special" copies ... perhaps the absence of
source_path/txn_id can serve as such indication. In fact, the no-op
copy '0' has no path and no txn_id ... so there is a little bit of a
precedent. :-)

> * What should we do about the list of copies in a transaction?
> Well, clearly, we should add this copy to that list.

Agreed. The copy must be referenced by the transaction so that at the
very least it can be cleaned up if the transaction is aborted (like
any other copy is).

> * Should we somehow distinguish in the Copy table &/or the transaction
> changes information that this was a lazily invoked operation?
> Yes, we should certainly do that. We don't want svn's dump/load code
> getting confused.

Agreed. `Changes' table should be fine -- it doesn't record copies.
The `copies' table is the one that will need this info recorded. See
above comments for one way in which this distinction might be made.

> * Should we display this new distinction in transaction change output
> from svn log?
> I would tend to say not. The user won't notice any visible difference.

We *definitely* should not. A log message that reads "edited A2/foo2"
will be very confusing with "changed path" output right above it that
says "Added: A2/foo2 (from A/foo2)".

Buh. My brain hurts.

To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sat Aug 3 08:31:18 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.