On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 9:30 AM, Greg Stein <gstein_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 08:44, Bert Huijben <rhuijben_at_sharpsvn.net> wrote:
>>...
>> +++ trunk/subversion/libsvn_client/merge.c Thu Oct 1 05:44:40 2009 (r39733)
>> @@ -417,13 +417,14 @@ obstructed_or_missing(const char *path,
>> svn_error_t *err;
>> const svn_wc_entry_t *entry;
>> svn_node_kind_t kind_expected, kind_on_disk;
>> + svn_boolean_t obstructed;
>> const char *local_abspath;
>>
>> err = svn_dirent_get_absolute(&local_abspath, path, pool);
>>
>> if (!err)
>> err = svn_wc__maybe_get_entry(&entry, merge_b->ctx->wc_ctx, local_abspath,
>> - svn_node_unknown, TRUE, FALSE, pool, pool);
>> + svn_node_unknown, FALSE, FALSE, pool, pool);
>
> Why did you change the SHOW_HIDDEN parameter here? That seems quite
> unrelated to the obstructed/missing question.
Hi Bert,
Did you by chance answer Greg's question on IRC? I'm wondering
because this change caused merge_authz_tests.py 1 'skipped paths get
overriding mergeinfo' to start failing. In that test,
obstructed_or_missing() gets called on a path which the user doesn't
have authorization for and instead of skipping the path a tree
conflict is raised. Is that the behavior we want? Tree conflicts on
paths the user can't access? Not sure that is correct, but first want
to find out if that was your intention!
Paul
------------------------------------------------------
http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=462&dsMessageId=2409462
Received on 2009-10-20 19:05:03 CEST