Greg Stein writes:
> On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 15:16, Bert Huijben wrote:
>>...
>>> wc_db could do this, as long as we put a check for conflicts up in
>>> svn_wc_delete() to look for unresolved conflicts.
>>
>> The easiest place to block this is probably libsvn_client. It does already
>
> That fee
On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 15:16, Bert Huijben wrote:
>...
>> wc_db could do this, as long as we put a check for conflicts up in
>> svn_wc_delete() to look for unresolved conflicts.
>
> The easiest place to block this is probably libsvn_client. It does already
That feels too high level to me. It all
> -Original Message-
> From: Greg Stein [mailto:gst...@gmail.com]
> Sent: donderdag 5 mei 2011 21:04
> To: Philip Martin; Julian Foad
> Cc: dev@subversion.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Making delete resolve tree conflicts
>
> >> - delete all conflicts
> &g
On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 10:58, Julian Foad wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-05-05 at 14:48 +0100, Philip Martin wrote:
>...
>> - fail, with an error about the orphaned conflict
>
> Doesn't feel right. The high-level "svn delete" operation is welcome to
> fail if there are any unresolved conflicts, like it
On Thu, 2011-05-05 at 14:48 +0100, Philip Martin wrote:
> Philip Martin writes:
>
> > svnadmin create repo
> > svn mkdir -mm file://`pwd`/repo/A
> > svn co -r0 file://`pwd`/repo wc
> > svn mkdir --parents wc/X/Y/A
> > svn merge -c1 ^/ wc/X/Y
> > svn rm --force wc/X
> >
> > sqlite3 wc/.svn/wc.db "
Philip Martin writes:
> svnadmin create repo
> svn mkdir -mm file://`pwd`/repo/A
> svn co -r0 file://`pwd`/repo wc
> svn mkdir --parents wc/X/Y/A
> svn merge -c1 ^/ wc/X/Y
> svn rm --force wc/X
>
> sqlite3 wc/.svn/wc.db "select op_depth, local_relpath from nodes"
> 0|
>
> sqlite3 wc/.svn/wc.db "s
Julian Foad writes:
>> > It also solves one of the orphaned ACTUAL_NODE problems: if the
>> > conflicted node is within an added tree then deleting the tree and
>> > leaving the ACTUAL_NODE row could result in an ACTUAL_NODE that has no
>> > parents.
>>
>> That would still be a "local delete, in
On Wed, 2011-05-04 at 12:42 -0400, Greg Stein wrote:
> On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 12:37, Philip Martin
> wrote:
> > To make the new single-txn delete pass the regression tests I had to
> > make it leave ACTUAL_NODE rows with tree conflicts. This preserved the
> > behaviour of the old per-node delete
Greg Stein writes:
> On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 12:37, Philip Martin
> wrote:
>> To make the new single-txn delete pass the regression tests I had to
>> make it leave ACTUAL_NODE rows with tree conflicts. This preserved the
>> behaviour of the old per-node delete code, but I'm wondering if that is
On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 12:37, Philip Martin wrote:
> To make the new single-txn delete pass the regression tests I had to
> make it leave ACTUAL_NODE rows with tree conflicts. This preserved the
> behaviour of the old per-node delete code, but I'm wondering if that is
> the correct thing to do.
10 matches
Mail list logo