> From: Steve Bakke [mailto:steven.bakke@amd.com]
>
> I'd rather not get caught up in a philosophical discussion on that
issue,
> since that part is out of my control. Does this or does this not
seem to
> be a bug in subversion 1.4.x? I believe that it is. My problem is
that I
> may be the only person to care about it. It is a clear change in
behavior
> from previous versions that I don't think was intentional.
You've mentioned that you've written a script to work around the
issue by coping the file to a temp file and moving it back in
place. Your grip is that this takes more time. I'd imagine so,
as it's a needless copy of identical data...which is probably
why this behavior was changed in svn itself. -My guess is that
this is probably part of the "working copy performance
improvements"
noted in the 1.4x release notes. Just changing the file perms
directly would of course be a far faster operation as well as
not require any additional temp space for the file.
If you haven't already you may be able to help your wrapper
script's performance by having it test to see if the file is
already owned correctly before doing the copy/move.
Another ugly hack would be to suid root your svn binary. ;-)
Honestly it sounds to me that you're calling a change in a
mis-feature a bug, which at best isn't fair. Your use-case
worked previously by chance, not by design. To ask that it
be "fixed" would be effectively asking for a new feature (a
new use-case to be officially supported).
FWIW CVS is even worse about handling this use-case.
-Byron
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Fri Dec 15 03:51:11 2006