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

RE: svn commit: r1394332 - /subversion/trunk/subversion/include/svn_client.h

From: Bert Huijben <bert_at_qqmail.nl>
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2012 16:19:06 +0200

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bert Huijben [mailto:bert_at_qqmail.nl]
> Sent: vrijdag 5 oktober 2012 15:30
> To: Michael Pilato; 'Ben Reser'
> Cc: dev_at_subversion.apache.org
> Subject: RE: svn commit: r1394332 -
> /subversion/trunk/subversion/include/svn_client.h
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: C. Michael Pilato [mailto:cmpilato_at_collab.net]
> > Sent: vrijdag 5 oktober 2012 14:49
> > To: Ben Reser
> > Cc: dev_at_subversion.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: svn commit: r1394332 -
> > /subversion/trunk/subversion/include/svn_client.h
> >
> > On 10/04/2012 10:06 PM, Ben Reser wrote:
> > > On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 6:48 PM, C. Michael Pilato <cmpilato_at_collab.net>
> > wrote:
> > >> On 10/04/2012 09:46 PM, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
> > >>> Perhaps you meant something like:
> > >>>
> > >>> "... it will enter versioned directories, scheduling any unversioned
> > >>> children thereof for addition."
> > >>
> > >> Sorry -- I just saw that you fixed the *unversioned* bit. My additional
> > >> questions remain:
> > >>
> > >>> But why only #svn_depth_infinity? Will it not do the same (to
> different
> > >>> depths, of course) for #svn_depth_files and
> #svn_depth_immediates?
> > >
> > > How about:
> > >
> > > [[[
> > > When used with @a depth it will enter versioned directories (per the
> > > rules of the argument), and schedule unversioned children.
> > > ]]]
> > >
> >
> > Honestly, the original phrasing of the docstring remains a better starting
> > point, in my opinion. Your changes lose the context that all this
> > discussion about depth and unversioned items in a versioned tree are still
> > tried primarily to the use of the force flag. So if it were up to me, I
> > would restore that paragraph to the state it was in and make only minor
> > changes:
> >
> > * If @a force is not set and @a path is already under version
> > * control, return the error #SVN_ERR_ENTRY_EXISTS. If @a force is
> > * set, do not error on already-versioned items. When used on a
> > * directory in conjunction with a @a depth value greater than
> > * #svn_depth_empty, this has the effect of scheduling for addition
> > * any unversioned files and directories scattered within even a
> > * versioned tree (up to @a depth).
>
> Currently this function fails with an error when called on the working copy
> root, with and without force set to TRUE.
> (Probably because we originally handled force to suppress some light errors,
> while we can't add a working copy root to its parent)
>
> Maybe we should fix this as well if we are touching this code anyway?

http://stackoverflow.com/questions/11659867/is-there-a-directory-bug-in-svnclient-add
made me remember this problem
(Reported against SharpSvn, but the error originates in libsvn_client/libsvn_wc)

>
> Bert
Received on 2012-10-05 16:19:44 CEST

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