Could we tie it into cleanup? Then other tools like TortoiseSVN, Subclipse, AnkhSVN could invoke it too.
On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 6:30 PM, Julian Foad <julian.f...@wandisco.com> wrote: > I'm planning to commit the attached wc-db-verification-1.patch, subject > to any advice on how to best fit it in to the code base or other > concerns, in order to get a DB "self-check" function started. > > I think we need something like this. Earlier today I found that "svn > status" showed I had a clean, single-rev WC, while "svnversion" said it > was mixed-rev and switched. Investigation showed there were orphaned > base node rows in the DB which weren't seen by "svn st" but were seen by > "svnversion". I'm not interested in how that particular state came to > be, as I've run hundreds of buggy trunk builds on this WC over many > months. What I do want is to be able to run a set of checks on a DB > that detects basic rule violations like that. > > Decisions about when and how to run it can come later. Of course if we > plan to run it frequently and automatically that would mean we'd want to > make sure it only did fast checks and is efficiently coded whereas if it > remains a manual intervention for devs then that's no concern. Thoughts > about this are welcome too. > > - Julian > > -- Thanks Mark Phippard http://markphip.blogspot.com/
