Erik Huelsmann writes:
> On 2/6/07, Daniel Rall <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > On Tue, 06 Feb 2007, Malcolm Rowe wrote:
> > > On Tue, Feb 06, 2007 at 03:50:17PM +0100, Henner Zeller wrote:
> > > > >I'm not that familiar with the code myself, but I'm surprised that we
> > > > >unconditionally remove the contents without checking them first
> > > >
> > > > Well its good to do so because the tmp/ area might have some old files
> > > > being lying around that we don't want to keep (hence the name tmp/).
> > > > Instead of looking for these files, the whole tmp/ is just removed
> > > > completely and rebuild.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Okay, that does make sense. I see that we only recreate the tmp/ area
> > > after we run the log for the wc, which will presumably fail if there are
> > > files referenced in the log that don't exist in tmp/ (because tmp/
> > > itself doesn't exist).
> Exactly. This is the problem I was referring to. The problem is that
> successful execution of the log file doesn't guarantee we did the
> right thing if the tmp area doesn't exist: we ignore ENOENT, so, we
> can't assume successful completion was really successful, can we?
Then, that is a problem that would need fixing in general.
In general, we assume that nothing changes in the admin area between a failing
operation and the rerun of the logs.
If that's not the case (say a file inside .svn/tmp disapears), all sorts of
things can go wrong, but this has nothing to do with this patch.
> If those files referenced in the logs don't exist *and* we execute the
> log, is the end result guaranteed to be a consistent (known) state? Or
> can we end up with a modified working copy admin area which is missing
> the files in the working copy?
> > I'm in favor of this patch. It passes the test suite; I'll be
> > committing it later today unless any other issues with it are raised.
> Do we know for certain this is a change for the better? Our working
> copy isn't known for its stability as it is, so, I'm all in favor of
> changing it, but I'd like it to be a sure change on the side of
I'd say this is a *slight* usability improvement which doesn't
make the situation with the current log-based system worse
than it already is. Improving the robustness of rerunning logs
(say by making sure that the destination of the move
is the expected one or something) would be another change
that might add more complexity than is worth.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: email@example.com
For additional commands, e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
Received on Tue Feb 6 22:25:23 2007