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

Re: svn commit: rev 5814 - in trunk/subversion: libsvn_wc tests/clients/cmdline

From: Brian Denny <brian_at_briandenny.net>
Date: 2003-05-06 19:49:08 CEST

On Tue, May 06, 2003 at 09:54:44AM -0500, Ben Collins-Sussman wrote:
> Remember that we're already using this post-update technique for
> 'deleted' items. After the client finishes applying the tree delta to
> the working copy, it looks for 'deleted' items -- if any exist, the
> logic is "huh... well the server didn't re-add them, I guess they're
> really supposed to be gone for good, then."
> All we're doing now is extending that same idea to 'missing items':
> "if the server didn't re-add them, then they're really supposed to be
> gone for good." It seems like a perfectly consistent strategy to me.

so, does that mean that our treatment of 'deleted' items is 'vulnerable'
in the same way that Philip describes? their entries, too, get removed
in svn_wc__do_update_cleanup and its callees. an interruption before
do_update_cleanup could leave the parent dir with a 'deleted' entry
which isn't really deleted with respect to the (bumped) revnum.

or is there some other place where 'deleted' entries get removed, too?


To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Tue May 6 19:46:34 2003

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.