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

RE: holes in the WC-NG schema?

From: Bert Huijben <bert_at_qqmail.nl>
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2010 17:43:45 +0100

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Neels J Hofmeyr [mailto:neels_at_elego.de]
> Sent: vrijdag 5 maart 2010 11:45
> To: dev_at_subversion.apache.org
> Subject: Re: holes in the WC-NG schema?
>
> Neels J Hofmeyr wrote:
> > I remember someone talking of a hole. It went something like: If a
folder is
> > copied-here, all its children have locally added status, and I
understand
> > they refer to the op-root of the add to find out their history, i.e.
that
> > they are copied. Now what if I replace such a child node with a fresh,
new
> > node -- it will still think that it's part of the copy-here. Just vague
> > memory, haven't verified. This one should be fixed if it turns out to be
so.
>
> Turns out we are aware of this problem. My noob shot at a solution would
be
> to have an indicator whether a WORKING node is the op-root of an add.
> Then
> we can have an op-root of an add within another op-root of an add without
> confusion. We might indicate on the inner op-root that they are not the
root
> of all locally added nodes, but just the root of an add operation. (Or
have
> scan_addition() find out by also scanning the parent of each add-op-root,
> which it does anyway when asked to find the repository path of the add,
> which it derives from the op-root's parent's BASE tree node ('s
ancestors).)

This would fix local adds, but it is not a complete solution for allowing
all revert scenarios from nested add with history trees. (especially the
cases where you replace some subtree of an add with history with a different
tree)

We need a more advanced schema to fix this category. The simple fix would
fix this behavior we supported in 1.6, but we might want the better fix.

        Bert
Received on 2010-03-05 17:44:22 CET

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