On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 06:17, Philip Martin <[email protected]> wrote: > Greg Stein <[email protected]> writes: >> On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 19:40, <[email protected]> wrote: >>>... >>> +++ subversion/trunk/subversion/libsvn_wc/wc_db.h Mon Mar 29 23:40:55 2010 >... >>> + ### one of NEW_CHILDREN, NEW_CHECKSUM, or NEW_TARGET must be provided. >>> + ### the other two values must be NULL. >>> + ### should this be broken out into an update_(directory|file|symlink) ? >... > What is NEW_TARGET?
New symlink target. > I guess NEW_CHILDREN is supposed to allow a directory to be added > without being incomplete. How is that going to work? The skeleton > implementation of base_add_directory adds an incomplete node for each > child, files as well as directories. It just seems to move the > incomplete flag from the directory to all of its childen. Yes. By moving the incomplete status to the children, you can add/update a directory atomically. You know which children are needed if an interruption occurs. In wc-1, the directory is marked incomplete until all of the children arrive. An interruption meant that you have to fetch the directory and all its children *again* (rather than just each remaining incomplete child). >... >> Another example would be converting a presence=not-present (deletion >> of a child of a copied/moved-here tree) into a presence=base-deleted >> (the child is now part of BASE, so we mark that for deletion). > > How does that occur? The parent is copied, the child is not-present. > If the child is going to become base-deleted the update must first > convert the copied parent into a normal base. Is that a tree conflict > that has been automatically resolved? And then the update does > something that converts not-present into base-deleted. I'm not sure > what that would be. The scenario is that the parent-copied node is somehow resolved into "equal to what we just got from the update", so the copy goes away. The deleted child is now actually a deleted base. Could that actually happen? Beats me :-P ... just trying to blue-sky some examples. As I said: I hope that we never have to touch WORKING. That we can simply modify BASE, and possibly insert some conflict data into ACTUAL. >... Cheers, -g
