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

Re: svn commit: r1362739 - /subversion/trunk/subversion/tests/cmdline/basic_tests.py

From: Branko Čibej <brane_at_wandisco.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2012 11:50:09 +0200

On 18.07.2012 10:51, Philip Martin wrote:
> "Bert Huijben" <bert_at_qqmail.nl> writes:
>> In 1.6 all these cases worked because we found a .svn directory with
>> metadata in the immediate parent (=the symlinked directory).
>> I'm not sure if we really want to support all these corner cases
>> (including those where this symlink is versioned itself). We never
>> intentionally broke this feature.
> The 1.6 behaviour could be considered a bug.

That's a bit too strong, IMO. The fact is that, up to 1.6, every
directory in the working copy was effectively a working copy root, and
we even had code that specifically made it possible to acces a WC root
through a symbolic link (the main use case was wc-root-on-subst-drive on
Windows). So it's reasonable to interpret this as supported behaviour,
even if we never intended it.

> Following unversioned
> symlinks to the root of a working copy is probably simple enough, but
> following unversioned symlinks inside a working copy looks far harder.
> svnadmin create repo
> svn import -mm repo/format file://`pwd`/repo/A/f
> svn co file://`pwd`/repo wc
> ln -s f wc/A/g1
> ln -s A wc/B1
> svn add wc/A/g1 wc/B1
> svn ci -mm wc
> ln -s f wc/A/g2
> ln -s A wc/B2
> wc/A/f is a versioned file; the content can be accessed through a
> variety of paths containing symlinks: wc/A/g1, wc/A/g2, wc/B1/f,
> wc/B2/f, wc/B1/g1, wc/B1/g2, wc/B2/g1 and wc/B2/g2. Some of the
> symlinks are versioned and some are unversioned.
> Now consider:
> echo new-f > wc/A/f
> svn st wc/A/g1
> svn ci -mm wc/A/g1
> wc/A/g1 is versioned so status shows the status of wc/A/g1 not wc/A/f
> and commit does nothing unless wc/A/g1 is changed. That behaviour looks
> correct to me.

Yes. This is the tricky part. IMO the only rational thing to do is to
never try to resolve symlinks if the original target resolves to a known
node. So in the commit case the user might be surprised by the different
behaviour if the symlink is versioned or not, but at least the
difference can be explained.

> What about the unversioned wc/A/g2? The new 4193 tests seem to assume
> that Subversion operations should follow this symlink through to wc/A/f.
> Is it sensible for operations on an unversioned symlink to affect the
> target while the same operations on a versioned symlink affect the
> source? That strikes me as very confusing.
> How should wc/B2/g1 behave? wc/B2 is unversioned but wc/B2/g1 points to
> wc/A/g1 which is versioned. Do operations on wc/B2/g1 affect wc/A/f?

I think the only thing we could do is to resolve symlinks in explicit
targets iff the original path does not resolve to a known versioned
node. That would isolate the extra work in the error case and would not
change the behaviour of cases that currently work, nor would it change
the way recursive operations work.

I also wouldn't worry about the paths in notification callbacks but
would just use the resolved paths everywhere; e.g., if "svn ci x/f" gets
translated to "svn ci a/f", I wouldn't try to show x/f in the commit

-- Brane

Certified & Supported Apache Subversion Downloads:
Received on 2012-07-18 11:50:47 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.