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

Re: svn trunk r15103: FAIL (x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu shared ra_local bdb)

From: Peter N. Lundblad <peter_at_famlundblad.se>
Date: 2005-06-20 15:02:04 CEST

On Mon, 20 Jun 2005, Philip Martin wrote:

> "Peter N. Lundblad" <peter@famlundblad.se> writes:
>
> > On Sun, 19 Jun 2005, Philip Martin wrote:
> >>
> >> versioned, so it didn't see SVN_ERR_ENTRY_NOT_FOUND if the file did
> >> not exist and returned no error. If the file was unversioned but did
> >> exist then I think SVN_ERR_ENTRY_NOT_FOUND was returned. The
> >> libsvn_wc code is so complicated it's not clear whether this was
> >> accidental or deliberate, and it's not clear whether that exact
> >
> > OK. I didn't think of that case. I'll commit the patch above tommorrow if
> > you don't.
>
> One of the reasons I haven't committed it is that I'm not sure that
> catching SVN_ERR_ENTRY_NOT_FOUND is the correct solution. Returning
> SVN_ERR_ENTRY_NOT_FOUND might be the right thing to do when the target
> is unversioned, it looks sensible to me. Why is checkout attempting
> to determine if unversioned items have text changes? Is that
> sensible? If you do commit it then note that the old behaviour was
> documented in svn_wc.h!

Which was the other reason I choose my approach instead. We can't mess
with the public API like I did, of course.

Regards,
//Peter

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Mon Jun 20 15:03:01 2005

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.