Brian Denny <brian@briandenny.net> writes:
> 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.
Ooh, yeah, you're right. Our current treatment of 'deleted' items is
just as vulnerable. Not a good thing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Tue May 6 21:25:35 2003