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

RE: r39592

From: Bert Huijben <rhuijben_at_sharpsvn.net>
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 2009 17:39:28 +0200

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joe Swatosh [mailto:joe.swatosh_at_gmail.com]
> Sent: zaterdag 17 oktober 2009 17:32
> To: SVN Dev; Bert Huijben
> Subject: Re: r39592
>
> Hi Bert,
>
> I know I should sleep on it instead of sending right before bed.
>
> There are two things going on:
> First, there is a bug in the ruby bindings tests (misspelling
> "infinity" as "infinite" so the bindings translate it as "unknown").
> Second, svn_client_resolve now no longer treats depth unknown as depth
> infinity.
>
> I will fix the first issue.
> I'm not sure the second issue is a problem or just a change.....

        Hi,

Thanks for looking into this.

I'll verify the 1.6 behavior and I will change the depth unknown behavior to
infinity after confirming your findings.

BTW. There was some on-irc talk about the svn_wc_ensure_adm() behavior on no
longer allowing NULL uuid and repository root.

The idea was (if I remember correctly) to disallow uuid and repository empty
on a completely standalone working copies (like the one in the ruby test),
but to try copying the data from its parent directory if that is a working
copy. (And probably write an erratum to explain the behavior change).

I don't think the copying from parent part is implemented yet, but the WC-NG
data model doesn't allow working copies without repository/uuid. So it would
be very hard to support the old behavior.. Which would give you a mostly
unusable working copy anyway.

        Bert

------------------------------------------------------
http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=462&dsMessageId=2408532
Received on 2009-10-17 17:39:37 CEST

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