Can the client issue a delete, and continue if there is a failure?
And more importantly, if the server issues a failure, will it continue
to accept further changes?
IOW, can we send a delete (when we have no definitive knowledge),
ignore failures, and continue processing. Will the overall system
function?
Thx,
-g
On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 05:53, <philip_at_apache.org> wrote:
> Author: philip
> Date: Fri Oct 8 09:53:19 2010
> New Revision: 1005751
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1005751&view=rev
> Log:
> * notes/wc-ng/nodes: server overwrite
>
> Modified:
> subversion/trunk/notes/wc-ng/nodes
>
> Modified: subversion/trunk/notes/wc-ng/nodes
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/subversion/trunk/notes/wc-ng/nodes?rev=1005751&r1=1005750&r2=1005751&view=diff
> ==============================================================================
> --- subversion/trunk/notes/wc-ng/nodes (original)
> +++ subversion/trunk/notes/wc-ng/nodes Fri Oct 8 09:53:19 2010
> @@ -217,6 +217,18 @@ become an op_depth layer of their own.
> allowed to exist (ie. we have implied overwrite semantics in the
> repository).
>
> + PM: Yes, we have overwrite sematics. The FS layer on the server has
> + magic that converts the copy of the r12 descendant into a replace if
> + the descendant exists in r10. The client does not send a delete.
> +
> + This magic applies to copies, not deletes, so there is a problem
> + when the descendant is deleted in the mixed-revision copy in the
> + working copy. When faced with a copy of the subtree at r10 and a
> + delete of a descendant at r12 the commit doesn't work at present.
> + Deleting the descendant is wrong if it does not exist in r10, but
> + not deleting it is wrong if it does exist. I suppose the client
> + could ask the server, or perhaps use multiple layers of BASE to
> + track mixed-revisions (argh!).
>
> In a deleted subtree, all nodes get marked deleted explicitly
> -------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
Received on 2010-10-08 12:12:57 CEST