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

Re: [PATCH] really skip tree conflict victims (2)

From: Julian Foad <julianfoad_at_btopenworld.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2008 00:34:58 +0000

On Wed, 2008-11-12 at 18:29 +0100, Stephen Butler wrote:
> Hi tree conflict fans,
> I committed the patch (after some more work) as r34158. Sorry
> it's such a massive set of changes, but I didn't see how to
> split it nicely.

+1. Thanks, Steve.

> Any working copy/adm_access gurus out there, please have a look
> at the shenanigans going on in already_in_a_tree_conflict().
> The issue discussed below is not quite closed. I couldn't use
> svn_wc_adm_probe_try3() because it requires an associated access
> baton. But already_in_a_tree_conflict() can't use any
> associated batons, because it would "pollute" them with
> references to their parent dirs. svn_wc_adm_probe_open3() seems
> to work OK.

OK, stsp's been looking at a similar issue tonight and I'm watching and
will take it up in the morning and see if the same concerns or solutions
apply here.

> General remarks on r34158:
> 1. Need more tests. As always....

Sure... but anything in particular?

> 2. The new function already_in_a_tree_conflict() isn't very efficient.
> 3. tree_conflicts_on_update_2_1 and _3 show that an incoming tree delete
> bumps the revision number inside a victim tree. I don't know how to
> solve this without leaving the parent dirs incomplete. Maybe I need
> to hack something in complete_directory().
> 4. tree_conflicts_on_update_2_3 is XFail due to an update bug. If an
> update target is a single file or dir that has been deleted from the
> repo, update should print a 'Skipped' message. Instead, it either
> prints nothing or stops with an error. Fixing this requires moving
> some functions, I think, so I'll do it in a separate commit for
> clarity.
> 5. tree_conflicts_on_switch_2_1 and _3 are XFail because of a bug in
> 'svn status -u', which asks the repo for the status of items added by
> switch that haven't been committed yet, and receives "path 'X' does
> not exist in repository". This should be status '? ' instead of an
> error. There's a related problem with 'svn status' in switch test 21.

I'll try to look at these at some point.

- Julian

To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help_at_subversion.tigris.org
Received on 2008-11-14 01:35:18 CET

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.