Re: Issue #1911 -- Seeking thinker donations

Greg Hudson <ghudson@MIT.EDU> writes:

> On Thu, 2005-09-29 at 11:28 -0400, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
> > My change to svndumpfilter was to make it say, "If the copyfrom source
> > revision is one which I've dropped, then use the youngest not-dropped
> > revision which is older than that dropped revision." (And again, I
> > implemented this twice: once brute-force, once with some class.)
> >
> > Here's where I'm getting hung up, though. I've not fully convinced
> > myself that this is a safe algorithm to fallback to.
>
> I think it should be safe. If the copy source was not filtered out,
> then there should be no dropped revisions which affect the copy source,
> which means copysource@original-copy-rev and
> copysource@next-older-copy-rev should be the same node-revision.

That was my thinking too.

And in the one exception case, where the copy source *is* filtered but
the copy is converted to an add-without-history, the copyfrom-rev is
dropped altogether.

I'm going to commit that second patch up. Thanks for the sanity
check, Greg.

-- 
C. Michael Pilato <cmpilato@collab.net>
CollabNet   <>   www.collab.net   <>   Distributed Development On Demand
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org