Re: wc-ng base/working nodes in a copied tree

On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 07:09, Philip Martin <philip.martin_at_wandisco.com> wrote:
> Greg Stein <gstein_at_gmail.com> writes:
>
>> Excluded in the wc is just that. It does not mean "delete upon commit." We
>> have other statii to mean that.
>
> In 1.6 when we copy a tree containing deleted=true we mark the copied
> node so that it gets deleted upon commit.  Are we going to change
> that?

That's my suggestion, yes. I believe that behavior is a bug. Consider
that you have DIR_at_10 and DIR/A_at_11 is not-present. If you copy DIR_at_10
to OTHER, then you should get DIR/A_at_10 along with it. We don't have
the data on the client, so we just mark that node excluded.

Hmm. But I guess the operation is "set up the local wc so that, when I
commit, it will look like DIR." Mixed-rev and all. And any local ops
in DIR would carry over, too.

Okay. So I guess we continue to mark that as sched-delete.

>  If we mark the node excluded do we use some additional mark to
> indicate delete?

To delete a node, it needs to be present in the working copy. ie. depth=empty.

But never mind this particular scenario.

>...

Now back to the prior messages...

Cheers,
-g
Received on 2010-04-07 21:51:06 CEST