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

Re: issue 919 solution

From: Jack Repenning <jrepenning_at_collab.net>
Date: 2003-06-20 00:48:44 CEST

At 5:32 PM -0500 6/19/03, Ben Collins-Sussman wrote:
>So I think the delete_entry() function can grow some new logic: if the
>thing being deleted *is* the target of the update, then we can have
>its entry marked 'deleted'. Very simple.

I leave to others to check your claim that this is the only case.
But marking it 'deleted' because it's being deleted? Lemme see ...
how could that be right? ;-)

Actually, of course, it sounds exactly right, because it's simply
telling the truth (/me likes truth). If there is some code somewhere
else that doesn't like having deleted files marked 'deleted,' ...
well ... *it's* wrong!

>[P.S. I also thought of a "sneaky but lazy" alternative
>solution... instead of marking the child as 'deleted', we can mark the
>parent as 'incomplete'.

Ah, yes, thanks: great counter-example! The 'incomplete' state means
"something was aborted," I believe. Recycling it (or even
"rethinking" it) for this new state is scary, because the new meaning
is not the same as the old. Some thought on all known code paths
suggests it'll do the right thing, but what about the code paths
unconsidered, including the ones not yet written? As a general
thing, I can imagine a great many reactions to "something aborted"
that are inappropriate for the situation "something was carefully and
completely deleted."

Jack Repenning
CollabNet, Inc.
8000 Marina Boulevard, Suite 600
Brisbane, California 94015
o: 650.228.2562
c: 408.835-8090
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Fri Jun 20 00:49:36 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.