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

Re: [Issue 864] Changed - 'svn rm --force' a scheduled (not committed) directory tree fails with locking errors

From: Philip Martin <philip_at_codematters.co.uk>
Date: 2002-08-11 23:57:17 CEST

[I didn't notice that these had the wrong CC (dev@subissue instead of
 dev@subversion), I believe Peter intended this discussion to be on
 the list.]

Philip Martin <philip@codematters.co.uk> writes:

> Peter Davis <peter@pdavis.cx> writes:
>
> > On Sunday 11 August 2002 12:08, you wrote:
> > > Does 'svn rm --force /path/to/wc/a' work when 'svn rm --force a' fails?
> >
> > Yup.
>
> Hmm, in that case is there any possibility that you actually running
> an old version and not rev 2940?
>
> I'm not prepared to back out my 749 patches to debug it at the moment.
> If you want to have a go set a break point on svn_wc_adm_open and look
> at the paths that get passed in. The problem was that some paths had a
> "./" prefix, so "." "./a" and "./a/b" were opened and none of those
> matched "a/b". With rev 2940 ".", "a" and "a/b" should be opened.
>
> >
> > > It also helps if you can raise one issue for one problem :-)
> >
> > Did I not? One issue for deleting missing dirs, and one for deleting
> > not-missing dirs with subdirs (which includes the problem with 'svn cleanup'
> > not recursing into scheduled dirs in the workaround). :->
>
> Issue 864 mentions the rm locking problem, a non-recursive cleanup
> problem and a feature request for deletion of missing directories.
> That's three things in one issue :-)

Philip Martin <philip@codematters.co.uk> writes:

> Philip Martin <philip@codematters.co.uk> writes:
>
> > Peter Davis <peter@pdavis.cx> writes:
> >
> > > On Sunday 11 August 2002 12:08, you wrote:
> > > > Does 'svn rm --force /path/to/wc/a' work when 'svn rm --force a' fails?
> > >
> > > Yup.
> >
> > Hmm, in that case is there any possibility that you actually running
> > an old version and not rev 2940?
>
> OK, having checked in r2941, I can now try r2940, and yes it
> fails. Sorry about that. It *is* fixed in r2941.

-- 
Philip Martin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sun Aug 11 23:57:50 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.