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

RE: svn commit: r1087131 - /subversion/trunk/subversion/libsvn_wc/cleanup.c

From: Bert Huijben <bert_at_qqmail.nl>
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 13:50:45 +0200

> -----Original Message-----
> From: 'Daniel Shahaf' [mailto:danielsh_at_elego.de]
> Sent: donderdag 31 maart 2011 12:01
> To: Bert Huijben
> Cc: dev_at_subversion.apache.org
> Subject: Re: svn commit: r1087131 -
> /subversion/trunk/subversion/libsvn_wc/cleanup.c
>
> Bert Huijben wrote on Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 11:39:43 +0200:
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Daniel Shahaf [mailto:danielsh_at_elego.de]
> > > Isn't this the price we pay for our design choice of single db? i.e.,
> > > unless it's designly sane to ask the wq runner to run only the wq
items
> > > pertaining to a subtree of the working copy?
> >
> > For wq operations it doesn't matter whenever they run -they are all (or
> > should be) 100% restartable - so you can just run these whenever you
> want.
>
> I'm not concerned about the "when", I'm concerned about the case that
> the wq contains work items affecting /foo/bar while I'm trying to cleanup
> /foo11/bar39.

Working queue items 'may run at any time'. So just running them from cleanup
is safe; whatever path they touch.

The real problem is that cleanup steals all write locks below the passed
path for you: Which may (and most likely will) break your working copy when
operations are in progress.

        Bert
Received on 2011-03-31 13:51:23 CEST

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