Greg Stein wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 18:09, <cmpil...@apache.org> wrote:
>> ...
>> +++ subversion/trunk/subversion/libsvn_wc/adm_ops.c Tue Mar 2 23:09:53 2010
>> ...
>> @@ -854,15 +854,18 @@
>> }
>>
>> /* Handle "this dir" for states that need it done post-recursion. */
>> - SVN_ERR(svn_wc__get_entry(&entry, db, dir_abspath, FALSE,
>> - svn_node_dir, FALSE, iterpool, iterpool));
>> -
>> + SVN_ERR(svn_wc__db_read_info(&status, NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL,
>> + NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL,
>> + NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL,
>> NULL,
>> + NULL, NULL,
>> + db, dir_abspath, iterpool, iterpool));
>> /* Uncommitted directories (schedule add) that are to be scheduled for
>> deletion are a special case, they don't need to be changed as they
>> will be removed from their parent's entry list.
>> The files and directories are left on the disk in this special
>> case, so KEEP_LOCAL doesn't need to be set either. */
>> - if (entry->schedule != svn_wc_schedule_add)
>> + if (!(status == svn_wc__db_status_added ||
>> + status == svn_wc__db_status_obstructed_add))
>> {
>> SVN_ERR(svn_wc__db_temp_op_delete(db, dir_abspath, iterpool));
>
> In the old way of doing thigns, if the schedule was
> svn_wc_schedule_replace, then wc_db is going to return
> svn_wc__db_status_added for that condition. There are other
> considerations for determining "was this a schedule_replace of a plain
> schedule_add?"
>
> I've gotta run to a lunch. But if you look at
> questions.c::internal_is_replaced(), then you'll see that determining
> schedule_replace is a difficult problem. And the original
> schedule!=add condition *may* be looking for schedule_replace.
>
> But that is maybe the trick here, and why your testing did not find
> the code. Maybe it is only possible to see
> schedule_(normal|add|delete), and never a replace? That may narrow the
> amount of querying needed against wc_db. I can't take a look right
> now, but the comments suggest there may be very restricted conditions
> here.My attempts to get a mental handle on this situation have led me to more questions. (Big surprise, right?) In the 1.6.x code, mark_tree() (which has become mark_tree_deleted()) did a similar iteration over children -- skipping the "this dir" entry -- before acting on the directory itself. To what degree does the "this dir" paradigm continue to invade WC-NG? Obviously once we have a single DB per working copy, there will be no more need to distinguish between "this dir" in some/dir/.svn/entries and "dir" in some/.svn/entries. But until then? I *think* mark_tree_deleted() is effectively doing the same thing -- it iterates over children, but while it doesn't explicitly have code to skip a "this dir" entry, my reading of db_read_children() leads me to believe that it never returns that kind of fake entry anyway. In other words, db_read_children() appears to be ready for the single-db lifestyle. Is that accurate? -- C. Michael Pilato <cmpil...@collab.net> CollabNet <> www.collab.net <> Distributed Development On Demand
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
