Neels J Hofmeyr wrote:
> Julian Foad wrote:
> > + Every path for which an entry exists in the WORKING_NODE table also
> > has
> > + an entry in the BASE_NODE table.
>
> AFAIR, this is not true for locally added nodes. Am I right?
Correct. Greg pointed it out and I fixed the comment in r91
Julian Foad wrote:
> Hey WC-NG folks, please tell me what's right/wrong/unsure in the
> additions and changes below. Feel free to commit any parts that are
> right: I'm not yet familiar enough to really be comfortable committing
> it myself but I will if you want.
>
> - Julian
>
>
> + Every p
Thanks, Greg.
On Wed, 2010-02-17, Greg Stein wrote:
> WORKING_NODE rows exist for *all* affected nodes.
Meaning all (grand)children of any affected directory as well, I take
it. OK, Bert confirmed on IRC. Fixed.
> ACTUAL_NODE rows may exist w/o a corresponding WORKING_NODE row (in
> which case,
On Wed, 2010-02-17, Greg Stein wrote:
> Also: PRISTINE.size is the size on-disk, which may be different from
> the uncompressed size.
Committed revision 911317.
> The on-disk size is handier than the uncompressed size, I believe.
Dunno, but let's start where we are.
- Julian
On Wed, 2010-02-17, Greg Stein wrote:
> To further illuminate here... the *same* pristine could have variant
> translated_size values based on each node's set of properties
> (svn:keywords, svn:eol-style, etc). That is why we attached the
> translated_size to the BASE_NODE and WORKING_NODE tables.
On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 14:14, Ivan Zhakov wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 10:12 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 14:03, Ivan Zhakov wrote:
>>> On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 9:57 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
Also: PRISTINE.size is the size on-disk, which may be different from
the
On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 10:12 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 14:03, Ivan Zhakov wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 9:57 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
>>> Also: PRISTINE.size is the size on-disk, which may be different from
>>> the uncompressed size.
>>>
>>> The on-disk size is handier th
On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 14:03, Ivan Zhakov wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 9:57 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
>> Also: PRISTINE.size is the size on-disk, which may be different from
>> the uncompressed size.
>>
>> The on-disk size is handier than the uncompressed size, I believe.
>>
> Just one note from
On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 9:57 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
> Also: PRISTINE.size is the size on-disk, which may be different from
> the uncompressed size.
>
> The on-disk size is handier than the uncompressed size, I believe.
>
Just one note from wc-1 experience: It's good to have translated
pristine size
Also: PRISTINE.size is the size on-disk, which may be different from
the uncompressed size.
The on-disk size is handier than the uncompressed size, I believe.
On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 13:51, Greg Stein wrote:
> WORKING_NODE rows exist for *all* affected nodes.
>
> ACTUAL_NODE rows may exist w/o a
WORKING_NODE rows exist for *all* affected nodes.
ACTUAL_NODE rows may exist w/o a corresponding WORKING_NODE row (in
which case, there better be a BASE_NODE row).
In the comments, we should be better about stating null rather than
NULL (as the latter indicates a NULL pointer, not the SQL null va
Hey WC-NG folks, please tell me what's right/wrong/unsure in the
additions and changes below. Feel free to commit any parts that are
right: I'm not yet familiar enough to really be comfortable committing
it myself but I will if you want.
- Julian
* subversion/libsvn_wc/wc-metadata.sql
(PRISTINE
12 matches
Mail list logo
