On Sun, 2005-11-13 at 22:07 +0000, Julian Foad wrote:
> Greg Hudson wrote:
> > On Fri, 2005-11-11 at 12:19 -0500, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> >
> >>Is it worth the expense of stat'ing every file on every update on some
> >>common file systems, just to issue an error message *early* about an
> >>incredibly uncommon case that issues an error message anyway?
> >
> > I agree with you; stat'ing every entry is too much of a cost for this.
>
> Yes, and your broad plan for fixing it sounds fine. (I haven't looked any closer.)
>
> > On a somewhat orthogonal note, the error mesage "Working copy 'foo' is
> > missing or not locked" is, in my view, a bug any time the user sees it.
>
> That's why the default message for that error is "Working copy not locked; this
> is probably a bug, please report". Unfortunately this particular usage
> replaces the default message with one that adds some information but loses the
> second part. That's a bug: it should either include all relevant parts of the
> default message, or issue its own message in a linked error rather than as a
> replacement.
Well, i've changed it to the attached, which tries to discover more
interesting reasons for why we couldn't retrieve the adm_access.
I hate having error handling here, but it looks like it is the only
place lower in the hierarchy to do it, since this is the failure point,
and the only thing above it is the retrieve call.
Take a look at report_revisions and you'll see what i mean.
--Dan
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sun Nov 13 23:35:50 2005