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

Re: [PATCH] depth test case: unversioned & modified items left untouched when folded

From: Rui, Guo <timmyguo_at_mail.ustc.edu.cn>
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 13:32:27 +0800

On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 12:46:27PM -0400, Karl Fogel wrote:
> > If we consider the unversioned & modified items as obstructions, should we
> > make the folding behavior under control of the --force option? That is to say,
> > only un-version the modified items when forced, just fail the folding by
> > default. If this is the preferred behavior, a --force option should be passed
> > to run_and_verify_update() function.
> >
> > And there is one more problem: should we output 'D ' on items that is
> > unversioned rather than deleted? When I first asked about folding a modified
> > item some days ago, Karl figured out that it should act like 'svn delete' --
> > leave the modified files in place. However, when I tried to see what does 'svn
> > delete' output in this situation, I found that it either refused to continue
> > or was forced to delete it. Any suggestion?
> Oops. Sorry -- I was really thinking of the behavior of 'svn up', not
> 'svn delete'.
> That is, say you run 'svn up' from the top of a Greek Tree working copy
> (the usual test tree: iota, A, A/mu, A/D/..., etc). In the repository,
> there's a change that removes the directory A/D/, and now you're going
> to receive that change.
> But in your working copy, you've modified A/D/G/pi, and created an
> unversioned file at A/D/H/unversioned.txt. When the update arrives, it
> will remove everything else, but it will leave the modified file and the
> unversioned file, and it will (of course) leave parent directories in
> place as necessary to reach those remaining items.
Emmm. I admit that I didn't considered this situation. It's very similar with
the situation here. So don't bother to interfere with the --force option since
we already chose not to do so in a similar situation.
> That is the behavior I was proposing here: we should fold up all
> versioned and unmodified stuff, but leave behind anything unversioned or
> modified (and therefore leave the intermediate directories necessary to
> reach those items).
Yes, I got your idea even you didn't used a proper example. ;)

However, the difference between receiving deletion in repository and folding
local wc directory should still be taken into account. The flag 'D' is
traditionally used to represent deletion that is (or will) reflected in
repository. However, I currently expect a 'D ' output in the test cases even
if the deletion happens only in local wc when folding. This deserves a second
thought. Moreover, when making modified items unversioned rather than removed
in this test case, I still use the 'D' flag in expected_output. I doubt if it
is a proper way. Do we need to introduce a new flag for this?

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 2008-04-22 07:32:44 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.