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

Re: svn commit: r33944 - in branches/tc-merge-notify/subversion: include libsvn_client libsvn_wc

From: Stephen Butler <sbutler_at_elego.de>
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2008 15:37:50 +0100

Quoting Julian Foad <julianfoad_at_btopenworld.com>:

> On Thu, 2008-10-30 at 03:10 +0100, Neels J. Hofmeyr wrote:
>>
>> Stephen Butler wrote:
>> > Quoting "Neels J. Hofmeyr" <neels_at_elego.de>:
>> >
>> >> Hey tree-conflicts folks,
>> >>
>> >> please review and/or jump right in and fix stuff.
>> >>
>> >> Thanks!
>> >> ~Neels
>> [...]
>> > But I think there's some extra changes needed to support
>> > skipping the victims. We need to separate tree conflict
>> > notifications from all of the others.
>> >
>> > I propose that we remove the (new) tree_conflicted field from
>> > svn_wc_notify_t, and add one or more notify-actions instead.
>> > At the same time, change the notify() function in the client to
>> > accept the new tree conflict notifications.
>>
>> Hey, that's actually a very good idea. I did this thinking that it would be
>> good to have the usual notification alongside the conflict. But that is
>> better solved with two new columns, as we discussed elsewhere.

>> > Comments?
>>
>> About this
>> > case svn_wc_notify_conflict_skip:
>> that prints
>> > (pool, _("Skipped conflicted path '%s'\n"), path_local)))
>>
>> Where is this going to be used, exactly? For persisting tree-conflicts? Not
>> for nodes inside a newly tree-conflicted directory, I presume.

That's correct. We'll be silent inside a tree conflicted dir that
we've already notified the user about.

>
> There is already a "skip" notification defined:
>
> /** The type of action occurring. */
> typedef enum svn_wc_notify_action_t
> {
> [...]
> /** Skipping a path. */
> svn_wc_notify_skip,
> [...]
>
> Shouldn't we be using svn_wc_notify_skip as the "action occurring", and
> set the "content_state" to "conflicted" or the "tree_conflicted" flag to
> true to indicate that the reason is a conflict?

Yes, it would be clearer to have just one skip action. BTW we
should get rid of the "Skipped missing target" output, because
that will always be a tree conflict.

Steve

-- 
Stephen Butler | Software Developer
elego Software Solutions GmbH
Gustav-Meyer-Allee 25 | 13355 Berlin | Germany
fon: +49 30 2345 8696 | mobile: +49 163 25 45 015
fax: +49 30 2345 8695 | http://www.elegosoft.com
Geschäftsführer: Olaf Wagner | Sitz der Gesellschaft: Berlin
Amtsgericht Charlottenburg HRB 77719 | USt-IdNr: DE163214194
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help_at_subversion.tigris.org
Received on 2008-10-30 15:38:04 CET

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