On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 4:54 AM, Hyrum K. Wright <hyrum_wri...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote: > > On Nov 30, 2009, at 5:21 AM, Julian Foad wrote: > >> On Mon, 2009-11-30 at 11:19 +0000, Julian Foad wrote: >>> On Mon, 2009-11-30 at 11:02 +0000, Philip Martin wrote: >>>> Julian Foad <julianf...@btopenworld.com> writes: >>>> >>>>>> This whole --parents stuff is bonkers. If I do >>>>>> >>>>>> svn mkdir --parents wc/foo/bar/zig/zag >>>>>> >>>>>> to create foo, foo/bar, foo/bar/zig and foo/bar/zig/zag the first path >>>>>> to get locked is wc/foo/bar. It makes no sense to start in the middle, >>>>>> either it should be locking paths from parent to child or from child >>>>>> to parent. >>>>> >>>>> Eww. How did you observe that? Can you see source code that would do >>>>> that? >>>> >>>> Run it in gdb, set a breakpoint on svn_wc__acquire_write_lock and/or >>>> svn_wc__db_wclock_set. It's the recursion in svn_client_add4 and >>>> add_parent_dirs that's the problem. 1.6 would attempt to lock from >>>> child to parent, fail because the directories weren't versioned and >>>> then lock from parent to child as the directories got added. >>> >>> Ah... it looks part of svn_client_add4() is currently "a hack" according >>> to WC-NG comments in it... Maybe >>> >>> /* ### Currently we rely on the fact that this releases all our write >>> locks >>> ### recursively. */ >>> >>> is a problem. I'll back off. >>> >>> I committed the status check in r885378, which will make basic_tests 7 >>> fail for now. >> >> (Uh, committing that wasn't quite in line with "backing off" :-) I hope >> that isn't seen as interfering. Just trying to help.) > > The last several days have been related to the Thanksgiving holiday in the > US, so I'm just now getting caught up. The discussion and attention to the > locking issues have been appreciated. > > About a week ago, Greg and I talked a little about working copy locking, and > instead of trying to hack something together piecemeal, I'm going to add a > section to the design doc. I think it'll be easier to communicate and get > feedback on The Plan that way. I'll commit the draft later today, and I'm > looking forward to both your comments. :) > > -Hyrum
In the past there were complaints about the bindings tests being "broken" and to be fair, in many cases the tests themselves were at fault. But this looks like a case where the bindings tests actually caught a regression (intentional or not), so I really appreciate that when they are exposing something that it gets some attention. Thanks again. -- Joe
