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

Re: svn commit: r937010 - in /subversion/trunk/subversion: include/private/svn_wc_private.h libsvn_client/diff.c libsvn_wc/copy.c libsvn_wc/node.c

From: Greg Stein <gstein_at_gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2010 06:58:48 -0400

On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 06:56, Philip Martin <philip.martin_at_wandisco.com> wrote:
> Greg Stein <gstein_at_gmail.com> writes:
>
>>> Are there any circumstances today when a node will not have an URL but
>>> will have a copyfrom URL?  Everything seems to work if I remove the
>>> copyfrom stuf from convert_to_url.
>>
>> entry->url "does not exist"... today, we call a function to provide a
>> URL. That means we can return a URL in every possible situation, for
>> some semantic of "what does that URL represent?"
>>
>> In general(*), entry->url means "the repository location that the node
>> came from, or where it will end up after a commit". And with that
>> semantic, we can *almost* always provide an answer.
>>
>> The only situation that I can think of is where a switched subdir has
>> been rm'd so we get back svn_wc__db_status_obstructed from the wc_db
>> functions. If we use the parent's information, we can guess at a URL,
>> but (due to the switch) it is wrong. Conceivably, we could *ensure*
>> that enough information is left in the parent stub to properly compute
>> the URL.
>>
>> We can always compute "where will this end up?" regardless of rm'd
>> subdirs. Excluded/absent/etc nodes can be derived from the parent, as
>> they are never switched.
>>
>> In single-db, the above-noted obstruction is no longer possible, which
>> means we'll always have a URL according to the above definition.
>
> I understand all that.  My question is in the (few) cases where we
> don't have an URL will we have a copyfrom URL.  It seems unlikely to
> me.

I will state, "in any potential case where a URL is not available...
NO, we will not have a copyfrom."

So: anything varying from that statement is a bug, so it can be taken
as axiomatic, and we work from there.

Cheers,
-g
Received on 2010-04-23 12:59:19 CEST

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