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

Re: svn commit: r28942 - in trunk/subversion: include libsvn_client tests/cmdline

From: Paul Burba <ptburba_at_gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 18:21:13 -0500

On Jan 25, 2008 7:28 PM, Paul Burba <pburba_at_collab.net> wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: dglasser_at_gmail.com [mailto:dglasser_at_gmail.com] On
> > Behalf Of David Glasser
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 6:25 PM
> > To: dev_at_subversion.tigris.org; pburba_at_tigris.org
> > Cc: svn_at_subversion.tigris.org
> > Subject: Re: svn commit: r28942 - in trunk/subversion:
> > include libsvn_client tests/cmdline
> >
> > On Jan 16, 2008 2:26 PM, <pburba_at_tigris.org> wrote:
> > > @@ -223,6 +224,13 @@
> > >
> > > SVN_ERR(svn_wc_entry(&entry, wcpath, adm_access, FALSE,
> > > pool));
> > >
> > > + /* Look in WCPATH's parents only if the parents
> > share the same
> > > + working revision. */
> > > + if (entry->revision != base_revision)
> > > + {
> > > + break;
> > > + }
> > > +
> >
> > Can this be safely relaxed to
> >
> > if (base_revision < entry->cmt_rev || entry->revision < base_revision)
> > break;
> >
> > ?
>
> I've thought about this a lot (too much), *certain* there was a
> problem...but I think I'm mistaken ;-)
>
> Once I phrase your suggestion this way, I can't find any problem with
> it:
>
> "Given a child path and it's immediate parent path, if
> parent_committed_rev <= child_working_rev <= parent_working_rev, then
> child can safely inherit from parent"
>
> However, does this gain us anything? I can't come up with one example
> where this change would correctly allow inheritance where it disallows
> it right now. IOW, it doesn't appear to get us out of the "update your
> merge target tree before merging" situation that exists right now. And
> if there is a situation where it does help, I dread trying to write the
> docs describing it, we'll probably just say "update your target WC
> before merging" anyway (assuming some form of mixed-rev WC restriction
> ultimately stays of course, no certain thing).
>
> Of course my brain is also wrapped in inheritance knots so maybe I'm not
> seeing something obvious...anyhow if I can't come up with a
> counter-example tonight I'll make the change.

With a fresher brain I agree that your suggested relaxation is
definitely safe (and possibly beneficial even if I still can't come up
with an example where it helps). Committed r29079.

Paul

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help_at_subversion.tigris.org
Received on 2008-01-30 00:21:26 CET

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