On Sat, Jun 14, 2008 at 08:58:08PM -0400, Karl Fogel wrote:
> > --- branches/issue-2843-dev/subversion/libsvn_wc/adm_crawler.c (r31723)
> > +++ branches/issue-2843-dev/subversion/libsvn_wc/adm_crawler.c (r31724)
> > @@ -278,6 +278,19 @@ report_revisions_and_depths(svn_wc_adm_a
> > continue;
> > }
> >
> > + /* Report the excluded path, no matter whether report_everything. */
> > + if (current_entry->depth == svn_depth_exclude)
> > + {
> > + SVN_ERR(reporter->set_path(report_baton,
> > + this_path,
> > + SVN_INVALID_REVNUM,
> > + svn_depth_exclude,
> > + FALSE,
> > + NULL,
> > + iterpool));
> > + continue;
> > + }
> > +
>
> I think it would be good for this comment to explain in more detail why
> we're reporting the excluded path always.
Because the report_everything flag indicates that the server will treate the
wc as empty and thus push full content of the files/subdirs. We just want to
say no to this. Does it clear enough? I'll write it as the new comment.
>
> > @@ -507,6 +520,9 @@ svn_wc_crawl_revisions3(const char *path
> > if ((! entry) || ((entry->schedule == svn_wc_schedule_add)
> > && (entry->kind == svn_node_dir)))
> > {
> > + /* Don't even check the exclude flag for target.
> > + Remember that we permit explicitly pull in target. */
> > +
>
> Do you mean "explicitly pulled-in target"?
>
> I'm not sure I understand how to connect the first sentence in that
> comment with the second sentence.
Well, I try to explain it in another way. If we report the TARGET itself as
excluded the server will send us nothing about the TARGET, right?
I just want 'svn up A' always works, no matter whether the wc root is in
svn_depth_empty/files or the target A was explicitly excluded while the wc
root is in svn_depth_immediates/infinity and we want it back now.
Rui
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help_at_subversion.tigris.org
Received on 2008-06-15 08:54:02 CEST