> -----Original Message-----
> From: Philip Martin [mailto:philip.martin_at_wandisco.com]
> Sent: vrijdag 6 september 2013 17:50
> To: Greg Stein
> Cc: dev_at_subversion.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Move using initial state
>
> Philip Martin <philip.martin_at_wandisco.com> writes:
>
> > What about alter_dir? I think the rule is that alter_dir on a directory
> > should occur before add or delete affects the children of the directory.
> > There is also a rule:
> >
> > * - The ancestor of an added, copied-here, moved-here, or
> > * modified node may not be deleted. The ancestor may not be moved
> > * (instead: perform the move, *then* the edits).
>
> I've been thinking about alter_dir and I see no reason, in the update
> editor at least, for a rule that requires alter_dir before adding or
> removing children. The Ev2 "once" rule is designed to ensure that Ev2
> actions can be applied to the nodes in the working copy as the actions
> are received and that the working copy nodes will always reflect
> repository nodes. This doesn't require alter_dir on the parent before
> add/delete of children.
Shouldn't alter_dir get the complete list of directories when children are
added/removed?
With editor v1 the list of children *must be* updated before we 'close' the
directory, by remove the incomplete flag. If we don't do this then an
interrupted update can't be restarted.
A similar scheme should also apply for editor v2. If children are added or
removed without bringing the parent in a 'being modified state', it is
neither in the original revision, nor in the final revision.
The alter_dir method would allow bringing it to completion directly by
giving it the complete final revision state, with the knowledge about which
children need a separate update to complete the entire tree.
Bert
>
> Consider a working copy with three nodes:
>
> A_at_6
> A/B_at_6
> A/C_at_6
>
> that gets updated to
>
> A_at_8
> A/D_at_8
> A/E_at_8
>
> That's two adds, two deletes and an alter and the update editor can
> handle them in any order, even this order:
>
> add_dir A/D
> delete A/B
> alter_dir A, children=D,E
> add_dir A/E
> delete A/C
>
> Lets see how NODES would work:
>
> relpath rev status
> A 6 normal
> A/B 6 normal
> A/C 6 normal
>
> add_dir A/D
>
> relpath rev status
> A 6 normal
> A/B 6 normal
> A/C 6 normal
> A/D 8 normal
>
> delete A/B
>
> relpath rev status
> A 6 normal
> A/B 6 not-present
> A/C 6 normal
> A/D 8 normal
>
> alter_dir A
>
> relpath rev status
> A 8 normal
> A/C 6 normal
> A/D 8 normal
> A/E 8 incomplete
>
> add_dir A/E
>
> relpath rev status
> A 8 normal
> A/C 6 normal
> A/D 8 normal
> A/E 8 normal
>
> delete A/C
>
> relpath rev status
> A 8 normal
> A/D 8 normal
> A/E 8 normal
>
> Every intermediate state has NODES rows that reflect repository nodes.
> If interrupted every intermediate state can be correctly updated to
> either r6, r8 or any other revision.
>
> The delete introduces a not-present node if the parent revision is
> different from the target revision, otherwise it simply removes the
> node.
>
> The alter removes any not-present children and introduces incomplete for
> any missing children.
>
> Any children that are replaced, i.e. add with replaces-rev set, do not
> require alter_dir on the parent at all, although some other change to
> the parent may require it.
>
> > It's not clear where alter_dir should occur w.r.t the moves in my
> > example. Does alter_dir count as an edit that should occur after move?
> > Do we pass initial state paths:
> >
> > alter_dir ., children='A'
> > alter_dir A, children=''
> > alter_dir A/B, children='C'
> > alter_dir A/B/C, children='B'
> >
> > or final_state paths:
> >
> > alter_dir ., children='A'
> > alter_dir A, children='B'
> > alter_dir A/B, children='C'
> > alter_dir A/B/C, children=''
>
> So we don't necessarily have to do alter_dir on the parent before moving
> children. What about alter on the moved node itself? Perhaps we do
> that between move_away and move_here.
>
> relpath rev status repo
> A 6 normal A
> A/B 6 normal A/B
> A/B/C 6 normal A/B/C
>
> move_away A/B/C, id=1
>
> relpath rev status repo
> A 6 normal A
> A/B 6 normal A/B
> A/B/C 6 not-present A/B/C
>
> move_away A/B, id=2
>
> relpath rev status repo
> A 6 normal A
> A/B 6 not-present A/B
>
> move_away A, id=3
>
> relpath rev status repo
> A 6 not-present A
>
> alter_dir id=1, children=B
> move_here id=1, A
>
> relpath rev status repo
> A 8 normal A
> A/B 8 incomplete A
>
> alter_dir id=2, children=C
> move_here id=2, A/B
>
> relpath rev status repo
> A 8 normal A
> A/B 8 normal A/B
> A/B/C 8 incomplete A/B/C
>
> alter_dir id=3, children=
> move_here id=3, A/B/C
>
> relpath rev status repo
> A 8 normal A
> A/B 8 normal A/B
> A/B/C 8 normal A/B/C
>
> That looks like the set of NODES tables that we want. At each stage the
> NODES rows reflect nodes in the repository and if interrupted an update
> to any revision is possible.
>
> This also means that NODES.repos_path and NODE.revision in the NODES
> table always reflect nodes in the repository. If we try to do alter
> before or after move we end up with things that look switched or nodes
> that are not valid. Consider an update that moves A/B to A/C:
>
> relpath rev status repo
> A 6 normal A
> A/B 6 normal A/B
>
> If we move before alter we either get
>
> move A/B A/C
>
> relpath rev status repo
> A 6 normal A
> A/C 6 normal A/C
>
> or
>
> relpath rev status repo
> A 6 normal A
> A/C 6 normal A/B
>
> The first has an invalid row A/C_at_6 the second has A/C switched. If we
> alter before move we either get
>
> alter_dir C, children=
>
> relpath rev status repo
> A 6 normal A
> A/B 8 normal A/B
>
> or
>
> relpath rev status repo
> A 6 normal A
> A/B 8 normal A/C
>
> again either invalid or switched. This implies that if we want to
> combine
>
> move_away A, id=1
> move_here id=1, B
>
> into a single
>
> move A, B
>
> then move and alter need to be combined:
>
> move_dir A, B, children=, props=
> move_file A, B, checksum=, props=
>
> --
> Philip Martin | Subversion Committer
> WANdisco // *Non-Stop Data*
Received on 2013-09-06 17:58:07 CEST