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

Re: svn commit: r1099657 - in /subversion/trunk/subversion/libsvn_wc: adm_ops.c wc_db.c wc_db.h

From: Philip Martin <philip.martin_at_wandisco.com>
Date: Thu, 05 May 2011 09:52:11 +0100

Greg Stein <gstein_at_gmail.com> writes:

> On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 21:46, <gstein_at_apache.org> wrote:
>> +++ subversion/trunk/subversion/libsvn_wc/wc_db.c Thu May  5 01:46:31 2011
>> @@ -3594,32 +3601,31 @@ svn_wc__db_op_set_changelist(svn_wc__db_
>> +  /* ### why we do filter SOME of the changelist notifications? if a row
>> +     ### is inserted, then don't we want to send a notification for it?  */
> This is the particular (archaeology) question that I have for you: why
> would we filter this stuff?
> It also kind of extends to Philip and the revert_list stuff. It does
> this kind of filtering, too.
> Can't we just run the notifications for every row in the table?

I don't know about changelists.

Revert notifications are skipped when the user has resolved a
text/property conflict by deleting the conflict files. When the user
resloves a conflict this way it leaves the filenames in the actual-node
row, but we treat the conflict as resolved. If the file text is also
unmodified revert is a no-op, it would be odd to get revert notification
on an unmodified file.

Received on 2011-05-05 10:52:53 CEST

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

This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.