Brian Denny <brian@briandenny.net> writes:
> On Tue, May 06, 2003 at 02:23:08PM -0500, Ben Collins-Sussman wrote:
> > >
> > > 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.
> >
>
> I probably won't have a chance to work on svn seriously until Saturday.
> In the meantime, should I reopen #1075 and/or file a new issue for this?
Re-open, please. And if you determine that we've regressed on that
other bug that you suspected your change caused, please make a value
judgment about whether or not we should recommend to our release
manager (Michael Price) that your change be reverted from the release
branch. I see no reason in any case to revert from the trunk at this
point.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Wed May 7 23:50:37 2003