I still think that logic should be reverted to its original,
unless/until you can explain/show why the change in logic is required.
On Sat, Feb 14, 2009 at 05:17, Hyrum K. Wright
<hyrum_wright_at_mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
>
> On Feb 13, 2009, at 9:50 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Feb 14, 2009 at 04:46, Hyrum K. Wright
>> <hyrum_wright_at_mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Feb 13, 2009, at 9:27 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 07:17, Hyrum K. Wright <hyrum_at_hyrumwright.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> ...
>>>>> @@ -2141,28 +2091,12 @@ svn_wc_prop_list(apr_hash_t **props,
>>>>> SVN_ERR(svn_wc_adm_retrieve(&adm_access, adm_access,
>>>>> svn_path_dirname(path, pool), pool));
>>>>>
>>>>> - return svn_wc__load_props(NULL, props, NULL, adm_access, path,
>>>>> pool);
>>>>> -}
>>>>> -
>>>>> -/* Determine if PROPNAME is contained in the list of space separated
>>>>> - values STRING. */
>>>>> + SVN_ERR(svn_wc__load_props(&base_props, &new_props, NULL,
>>>>> adm_access,
>>>>> + path, pool));
>>>>>
>>>>> -static svn_boolean_t
>>>>> -string_contains_prop(const char *string, const char *propname)
>>>>> -{
>>>>> - const char *place = strstr(string, propname);
>>>>> - int proplen = strlen(propname);
>>>>> + *props = apr_hash_overlay(pool, new_props, base_props);
>>>>
>>>> I don't understand why the logic changed here. The removal of the
>>>> propcaching should not have affected the original svn_wc__load_props()
>>>> call. So why the addition of the overlay here?
>>>
>>> This isn't about propcaching, this is about getting the BASE props and
>>> the
>>> WORKING props and combining them. With propcaching, the working props
>>> were
>>> cached (iiuc) so there wasn't a need to fetch them, which is what's
>>> happening here.
>>>
>>> Or, propcaching is just confusing and this makes things work until we get
>>> the props moved into sqlite.
>>
>> propcaching only told you whether one of three properties was present
>> on the node: externals, special, or needs-lock. It had nothing to do
>> with the values, and reading those from the files. Thus, you shouldn't
>> have had to change this code at all.
>>
>> Simple logic: note that you did *not* modify svn_wc__load_props(), so
>> its behavior is unchanged on fetching property values, so you should
>> not have had to compensate in any way.
>
> All I know is that with this section reverted, checkout_tests 9 ("checkout
> file with broken eol style") breaks on the branch. I haven't fully analyzed
> why, especially since property handling code is being rewritten Real Soon
> Now.
>
> -Hyrum
>
------------------------------------------------------
http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=462&dsMessageId=1172554
Received on 2009-02-16 19:57:54 CET