[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: Branko Čibej <brane_at_xbc.nu>
Date: 2003-06-20 01:42:36 CEST

Ben Collins-Sussman wrote:

>[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.
I think this is a better solution because it doesn't try to lie to the
WC or server. If you updated an entry to revisoin 0, you _didn't_ delete
it. It would look really weird if "svn st" mentioned it as such, IMHO.

Even better, instead of marking the directory incomplete, the right
solution would be to set the entry's revision correctly -- in this case,
the "correct" revision would be SVN_INVALID_REVNUM, since the thing
doesn't exist. The reporter could then do exactly the right thing --
tell the server that particular entry is missing.

I expect the reporter already knows how to do that, or at least "almost"
knows -- it may be just a question of SVN_INVALID_REVNUM being a valid
value in the tree report.

> Heck, we might even
>be able to get rid of the *whole* 'deleted' flag this way!]
Nah. "deleted" has its own, very specific meaning.

Brane Čibej   <brane_at_xbc.nu>   http://www.xbc.nu/brane/
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Fri Jun 20 01:44:23 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.