On Mon, May 05, 2003 at 04:40:28PM -0500, bdenny@tigris.org wrote:
> +
> + /* If the directory is 'missing', remove it. This is safe as
> + long as this function is only called as a helper to
> + svn_wc__do_update_cleanup, since the update will already have
> + restored any missing items that it didn't want to delete. */
> + if (remove_missing_dirs
> + && svn_wc__adm_missing (dirpath, child_path))
> + {
Looking into the change in Issue #854's behavior due to this commit,
I realized that by using svn_wc__adm_missing instead of checking for
the directory's existence on disk, this will treat as 'missing' any
directory that doesn't have a '.svn' administrative area (if it's
parent directory has an entry for it).
I'm not sure if this is correct. svn_wc_crawl_revisions checks for
'missing' paths by looking for them explicitly on disk, so to be
consistent, it seems like I should do the same. But making that
change would mean that a user who created a new, unversioned directory
in place of a 'missing' one would get a 'working copy not locked'
error if she tried to update to a revision in which the 'missing-
but-on-disk' directory didn't exist in the repository, which
seems unnecessarily conservative to me (r5814 seems to handle this
case perfectly well).
Opinions?
-brian
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sat May 10 03:27:59 2003