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

Re: [PATCH] Issue 898 atomic rename, implement svn_fs_rename

From: <brane_at_xbc.nu>
Date: 2003-01-23 02:26:05 CET

Philip Martin wrote:

Branko ÄŒibej brane@xbc.nu writes:

  

In particular, is it correct to record an add and a delete in the
changes table?

      

Ah, yes, that. I've been wondering about that myself, and it seems wrong
to record an add and delete if we're not, in fact, doing that. I'd
rather introduce rename-source and rename-target records; the -source
should somehow contain the target path, and the -target should contain
the source path, so that we can follow the rename in both directions.
    

Ahh, we do need to store a rename flag after all :) So where would the
extra path go? In a new renames table? In the existing changes
table?
  

I've just taken another look at the structure. I think we can record
this in the changes table, and we can glean the source and target paths
of the renames with the help of the txn-id stored in the change record.
We can even smell out the rename+modify thing, by noticing that we got a
rename-target and a later modify record on the same path in the txn.

-- 
Brane Čibej   brane_at_xbc.nu   http://www.xbc.nu/brane/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sat Oct 14 02:08:14 2006

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.