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

Re: tree conflicts and directories discussion

From: Stefan Sperling <stsp_at_elego.de>
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 15:29:11 +0200

On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 02:03:16PM +0100, Julian Foad wrote:
> Stefan Sperling wrote:
>> I think this needs to be decided on a case-by-case basis. E.g. we had
>> some discussion about what to do with deleted files, and ended up
>> carrying out the delete, but leaving the file behind unversioned. This was
>> a good decision in my opinion.
> There are too many possible cases to discuss them all on a case-by-case
> basis. That's why I want some rules or principles instead.

I feel like I'd only be able to make up a good rule by considering
all possible cases, taking the common denominator, and defining
special cases the common rule does not cover.

Otherwise I'd be afraid of missing something that we could run into later.

> We need to be careful about whether we're talking about a definition of
> what it means for a directory to be "modified", or about how the
> implementation can detect such a modification.

True. I am probably thinking too much in terms of implementation.

The limitations of the current design and implementation of Subversion
as a whole has repercussions on how we can handle tree conflicts in a
reasonable way without changing an awful lot of things. So in my thinking
I tend to take my idea of the current status of Subversion as a base to
start off from, rather than looking at the tree conflict requirements
in isolation of what's already there. This may explain why I am wording
some things differently than you do, even though we mean the same thing :)

> So we don't need to debate our definition, we only need to decide how to
> implement it.


>>> I have attached some notes on what tree-conflicts work is happening
>>> where, and my opinion of the level of agreement we've reached on the
>>> various aspects of this work.
>> Very nice. The doc overhaul may need an issue in the tracker.
> Nah. It's not clear exactly what needs to be done to "overhaul" the docs,
> so we can't know when we've finished doing it.

OK. So "The docs need to be synced with current discussion and code"
is a constant TODO item.

Stefan Sperling <stsp_at_elego.de>                 Software Developer
elego Software Solutions GmbH                            HRB 77719
Gustav-Meyer-Allee 25, Gebaeude 12        Tel:  +49 30 23 45 86 96 
13355 Berlin                              Fax:  +49 30 23 45 86 95
http://www.elego.de                 Geschaeftsfuehrer: Olaf Wagner

  • application/pgp-signature attachment: stored
Received on 2008-04-14 15:28:25 CEST

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

This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.