On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 13:04, Paul Burba <ptburba_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> 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!
Nope. It was never addressed. If changing that value makes the test
pass, then Just Do It (since Bert is pseudo-available for a while :-P
)
Thanks,
-g
------------------------------------------------------
http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=462&dsMessageId=2409482
Received on 2009-10-20 20:13:24 CEST