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

Re: svn commit: r1305801 - in /subversion/trunk/subversion: libsvn_wc/wc_db.c tests/libsvn_wc/op-depth-test.c

From: Stefan Sperling <stsp_at_elego.de>
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2012 19:12:47 +0200

On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 12:36:21PM -0400, Greg Stein wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 06:06, <stsp_at_apache.org> wrote:
> >...
> > +++ subversion/trunk/subversion/libsvn_wc/wc_db.c Tue Mar 27 10:06:41 2012
> >...
> > @@ -3657,7 +3657,7 @@ db_op_copy(svn_wc__db_wcroot_t *src_wcro
> >                     dst_op_depth,
> >                     dst_parent_relpath,
> >                     presence_map, dst_presence));
> > -      if (is_move)
> > +      if (is_move && status != svn_wc__db_status_added)
> >         SVN_ERR(svn_sqlite__bind_int64(stmt, 7, 1));
>
> Hrm. What happens if the status is svn_wc__db_status_copied? (another
> possible result from scan_addition) Don't you want to specifically
> test for status_moved_here?

As far as I understand, this could be the first time the node is moved.
So it might be status normal.

I thought briefly about performing a switch on 'status' to make sure
we consider all cases, but decided to defer that for later and just
fix the 'add' case for now.

Considering 'svn cp A B; svn mv B C' is something a user could do,
and given that this sequence doesn't currently result in useful DB state,
additional work is definitely needed here.
Received on 2012-03-27 19:13:25 CEST

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