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

Re: Tackling Issue 571

From: Philip Martin <philip_at_codematters.co.uk>
Date: 2003-07-01 18:22:55 CEST

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

> The logic you want is this:
> * if a file is opened/closed (update_editor.c:open_file/close_file),
> then we send a 'U'pdated notification. That's what we already do.
> * if a file is deleted (update_editor.c:delete_entry), remember this
> fact in the edit_baton (the major context). Don't print anything.
> * if a file is added, look in the edit_baton to see if the same path
> was previously deleted. If so, send an 'R'eplaced notification
> instead of an 'A'dded notification.
> * if a directory is closed, and there are still paths that were
> deleted but never re-added, *then* send all of the 'D'eleted
> signals.

In my view this solution leads to worse behaviour than the original
problem. As described above the feedback messages will not match the
order of the operations on the working copy. An update that is
interrupted, or fails, may not provide feedback for deletes that have
been made.

I don't have any problem with the existing feedback

  $ svn up
  D foo/bar
  A foo/bar

but if it has to change how about retaining the 'D' and changing 'A'
to 'R'? That could be implemented without changing the the order of
the feedback.

Philip Martin
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Tue Jul 1 18:23:45 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.