> From: Karl Fogel [mailto:kfogel@newton.ch.collab.net]
> Sent: 06 August 2002 16:42
[...]
> I have two comments on the patch:
>
> > This patch adds a new status code to subversion: svn_wc_status_obstructed.
> > An entry gets this status when:
> >
> > a) the entry's kind is different from the filesystem
> > b) the entry should be a versioned directory, but the directory
> > doesn't appear to be so on the filesystem.
>
> When you're writing the log message, you might want to change phrase
> (b). I got confused a couple of times, thinking you were saying that
> the directory "doesn't appear to be on the filesystem", because it's
> easy to miss the word "so". Of course, if the directory's not there
> at all, `svn_wc_status_absent' is the code used.
>
> So maybe:
>
> b) the entry should be a versioned directory, but the directory by
> that name is not versioned
>
> or something.
Ok, that makes a lot of sense ;). I'll write a decent log msg when
I commit it.
> My other thought is regarding your question about the STRICT flag to
> svn_wc_statuses(). The doc string says:
>
> If STRICT is non-zero, then if we encounter a path that is not in
> the wc, we'll return an error. STRICT should be zero if we're
> updating, as the update will catch any non wc path errors (and
> properly deal with files that are in the repository but missing
> from the wc for whatever reason).
>
> At first I thought "not in the wc" meant the same as "unversioned",
> but the following code in assemble_status() shows what's really going
> on. This is the only place where `strict' is actually used, instead
> of just passed along:
>
> /* If we're in strict mode and we encounter a path that doesn't
> exist in the wc, then we return an error*/
> if (strict && (path_kind == svn_node_none))
> return svn_error_createf (APR_ENOENT, 0, NULL, pool,
> "assemble_status: "
> "%s: No such file or directory",
> path);
>
> So STRICT is about returning an error instead of storing code
> svn_wc_status_absent. Thus, strictly speaking, you don't have to pay
> attention to STRICT. But in real life, I think it would be best to
> see who is passing the STRICT flag to svn_wc_statuses(), and why, and
> consider whether those cases will be affected by this new
> svn_wc_status_obstructed code. And if you want to clarify the
> description of STRICT semantics in the doc string for
> svn_wc_statuses(), that'd be great :-).
Hrmm... Ok, I'll see if I can identify the callers that use STRICT...
And one final comment: there is a little buglet in the patch in
svn_wc_statuses (it returns when there is _no_ error). I've already
fixed that locally, but since it is a one line diff with the patch
I'm not reposting the entire patch.
Sander
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Tue Aug 6 18:54:31 2002