Re: another ghudson-'deleted'-type bug?

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

> Up till now, we've always created entries with the 'deleted' flag as a
> way of saying, "this entry exists in the parent's rev, but is deleted
> in a *later* revision... which happens to be the rev of this file."

[...]

> But now we have a case where perhaps we should have a 'deleted' entry
> at a much earlier revision than its parent. Is this a scenario we've
> overlooked? Perhaps the 'deleted' flag should have a more general
> meaning, like "this entry exists in the parent's rev, but is deleted
> in *this* revision that the file happens to be at."

The latter is what I have always assumed was the definition of the
deleted flag. It exists as a placeholder of the existence of a thing
in the revision that parent direcotory claims to have, irrespective of
their relative "ages".

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Tue Oct 8 17:26:49 2002