[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: Philip Martin <philip_at_codematters.co.uk>
Date: 2003-06-20 00:59:24 CEST

Ben Collins-Sussman <sussman@collab.net> writes:

> 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.
> (Philip, does this sound right to you?)

I was wondering if we could do it without any special case code: have
delete_entry (or some low level function?) always mark the item
'deleted', then the existing code to remove 'deleted' flags would
clean-up when the parent was updated.

> [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'. This guarantees the next update of the parent
> will be one of the new 'low confidence' reports. Heck, we might even
> be able to get rid of the *whole* 'deleted' flag this way!]

I guess that's less efficient, at least as far as client-server
communication is concerned? Anything to make 'deleted' more robust
would be welcome, that's partly why I was considering the idea of
always setting the 'deleted' flag--make it normal rather than special.
(Although this may just move the special case, deletion of schedule
add might perhaps become 'special'.)

Philip Martin
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Fri Jun 20 01:00:58 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.