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

Re: svn commit: r923875 - /subversion/trunk/subversion/libsvn_client/copy.c

From: Greg Stein <gstein_at_gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2010 14:27:36 -0400

On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 13:11, <philip_at_apache.org> wrote:
>...
> +++ subversion/trunk/subversion/libsvn_client/copy.c Tue Mar 16 17:11:15 2010
>...
> @@ -1150,15 +1149,13 @@ wc_to_repos_copy(svn_commit_info_t **com
>   apr_hash_t *commit_revprops;
>   int i;
>
> -  /* Find the common root of all the source paths, and probe the wc. */
> +  /* Find the common root of all the source paths */
>   get_copy_pair_ancestors(copy_pairs, &top_src_path, NULL, NULL, pool);
> -  SVN_ERR(svn_wc__adm_probe_in_context(&adm_access, ctx->wc_ctx, top_src_path,
> -                                       FALSE, -1, ctx->cancel_func,
> -                                       ctx->cancel_baton, pool));
> -
> -  /* The commit process uses absolute paths, so we need to open the access
> -     baton using absolute paths, and so we really need to use absolute
> -     paths everywhere. */
> +
> +  /* Do we need to lock the working copy?  1.6 didn't take a write
> +     lock, but what happens if the working copy changes during the copy
> +     operation? */

I'd switch this to a ### comment saying "we should lock the working
copy to prevent changes while we perform the copy to the repository."

But when we do that... aren't we starting a commit? and doesn't the
commit lock the working copy?

>...

Cheers,
-g
Received on 2010-03-16 19:37:03 CET

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