Brian Denny <brian@briandenny.net> writes:
> On Sun, Apr 20, 2003 at 10:44:02PM +0100, Philip Martin wrote:
> > Brian Denny <brian@briandenny.net> writes:
> >
> > > (1) I *think* that the editor could "do the right thing" by
> > > always generating a delta when the source directory is missing --
> > > i.e., if the directory is present in the target, do an
> > > add (restore), and if it's absent in the target, do a delete. But
> > > that would also require some way of signaling a missing path to the
> > > reporter as distinct from a deleted path (not to mention that i have
> > > no idea how the missing item should be represented in the transaction
> > > "source tree").
> >
> > 'svn update' will replace missing directories, even if nothing has
> > changed in the repository. Can that mechanism be used to cause the
> > delete to get sent?
>
> i don't understand what you have in mind -- are you saying that we
> should restore the missing directory first, so that when we do the real
> update, we get the correct delta?
I hope that's not what he's saying. Philip seems to be describing
what you already described in your first mail: when the client sends
the update report, it describes the schedule-delete directory as
"missing", so it's removed from the repos txn. And thus the server
never sends a tree delta at all, which leads to problems.
Perhaps schedule-delete directories shouldn't be described as missing
at all -- only "deleted" ones. That would make the server send a
deletion command, which the client would then carry out, even in the
presence of a schedule-delete: it could be considered a case of
"merging" tree changes from the server which don't conflict.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Mon Apr 21 18:12:27 2003