Greg Stein wrote:
> Why are tests failing because of the different values?
I think it's not because the op_depth value is different, but because
creating a row with a different op_depth now in some cases means
creating an *additional* row, and the rest of the code is not yet
prepared for finding two or more WORKING rows for the same node.
Something like that.
- Julian
> Philip stated that we weren't really examining the values. That "zero
> vs non-zero" was the only real test so far. So why does inserting
> other values break things? That seems to be a more interesting problem
> to solve than simply throwing up our collective hands and #ifdef'ing
> the values out (along with that additional complexity!)
>
> Cheers,
> -g
>
> On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 07:58, <julianfoad_at_apache.org> wrote:
> > Author: julianfoad
> > Revision: 1001678
> > Modified property: svn:log
> >
> > Modified: svn:log at Mon Sep 27 11:58:18 2010
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > --- svn:log (original)
> > +++ svn:log Mon Sep 27 11:58:18 2010
> > @@ -1,2 +1,12 @@
> > +Guard some ongoing op_depth work inside a new conditional: SVN_WC__OP_DEPTH.
> > +Guards the change made in r1000557, but not yet the similar changes made in
> > +r1000955. These op_depth changes are causing test failures, and the fixes
> > +are expected to be extensive.
> > +
> > +Also document an existing function.
> > +
> > * subversion/libsvn_wc/wc_db.c
> > (construct_like_arg): Add a doc string. Fix naming of the pool arg.
> > + (svn_wc__db_op_add_directory, svn_wc__db_op_add_file,
> > + svn_wc__db_op_add_symlink): Change op_depth back to a hard-coded '2'
> > + unless SVN_WC__OP_DEPTH is defined.
> >
> >
Received on 2010-09-28 12:22:21 CEST