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

A question about sparse-directories

From: <timmyguo_at_mail.ustc.edu.cn>
Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2008 15:55:29 +0800

Hi all,
I'm digging into the sparse-directories design and do some reading more
carefully. I find an example in spare-directories.txt showing this:
   svn co --depth=immediates http://.../A Awc2
          Creates wc Awc2 with all files and all subdirectories, but
       subdirectories are *empty*.
          Awc2/.svn/entries this_dir depth-immediates
                                       B
                                       C
       Awc2/B/.svn/entries this_dir depth-empty
       Awc2/C/.svn/entries this_dir depth-empty
       ...
   
   svn up Awc/B:
          Since B is not yet checked out, add it at depth infinity.
          Awc/.svn/entries this_dir depth-empty
                                       B
       Awc/B/.svn/entries this_dir depth-infinity
                                       ...
       Awc/B/E/.svn/entries this_dir depth-infinity
                                       ...
       ...

While there is a paragraph in the "User interface" section saying this:
   Thus, 'checkout' is identical to 'checkout --depth=infinity', but
   'switch' and 'update' are not the same as 'switch --depth=infinity' and
   'update --depth=infinity'. The former update entries according to
   existing depth values, while the latter pull in everything.

Here comes my question, does the example implies that an update to a
depth-empty directory is designed to implicitly expand the directory to
depth-infinity, even without a --depth=infinity switch?

On the other hand, I checked the log of the trunk, and found there was a
sparse-directory branch, which was merged to trunk at r23994 and got deleted
then. I'll check out the branch and start learning the design from it. I
hope it is a right way to go.

By the way, please allow me to say something irrelevant, to complain about
an annoying behavior of the svn client, although it's better to post it in a
separate thread in the user list.
The problem is that, when 'svn update' applies the modification to the
working copy, it doesn't honor the ownership & permission that I set
explicitly. A default group ownership & permission determined by umask is
used instead. This is quite annoying when I try to debug the code as another
user.
This may have been discussed in the user group. Is this a deliberate design
or some issue to fix?

Thanks for reading.

Rui, Guo

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help_at_subversion.tigris.org
Received on 2008-03-23 08:53:45 CET

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