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

Re: Switching

From: Stefan Sperling <stsp_at_elego.de>
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2013 10:10:19 +0200

On Sun, Aug 25, 2013 at 03:44:05PM -0700, Travis Brown wrote:
> I took a brief look at the resolution code and found it to be a twisty
> maze of callbacks and workqueues. There didn't appear to be any existing
> infrastructure or obvious way to resolve the tree conflict on the
> directory and then continue with whatever operation caused the conflict
> in the first place.

I agree the layering is somewhat complex. 'svn resolve' now contains
several operations similar to update and merge, and which had to be
implemented from scratch where the existing update/merge code couldn't
be used without modification.

The callbacks are either conflict resolution callbacks that are needed
to support different client implementations at the API level, or they're
the editor callbacks which give the resolution code a structure similar
to the update and merge code. Technically, the editor API wouldn't be
needed within 'svn resolve', as it is intended to work primarily offline.
However, it may need to contact a server in the future. Also, we decided
to use the new resolver as a test bed for the new EditorV2 API, which
hasn't seen much use otherwise (expect in JavaHL and experimental branches).

You'd probably have to add a new operation within the wc_db code first
and then work your way up.
Received on 2013-08-26 10:12:23 CEST

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