Can the client issue a delete, and continue if there is a failure? And more importantly, if the server issues a failure, will it continue to accept further changes?
IOW, can we send a delete (when we have no definitive knowledge), ignore failures, and continue processing. Will the overall system function? Thx, -g On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 05:53, <phi...@apache.org> wrote: > Author: philip > Date: Fri Oct 8 09:53:19 2010 > New Revision: 1005751 > > URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1005751&view=rev > Log: > * notes/wc-ng/nodes: server overwrite > > Modified: > subversion/trunk/notes/wc-ng/nodes > > Modified: subversion/trunk/notes/wc-ng/nodes > URL: > http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/subversion/trunk/notes/wc-ng/nodes?rev=1005751&r1=1005750&r2=1005751&view=diff > ============================================================================== > --- subversion/trunk/notes/wc-ng/nodes (original) > +++ subversion/trunk/notes/wc-ng/nodes Fri Oct 8 09:53:19 2010 > @@ -217,6 +217,18 @@ become an op_depth layer of their own. > allowed to exist (ie. we have implied overwrite semantics in the > repository). > > + PM: Yes, we have overwrite sematics. The FS layer on the server has > + magic that converts the copy of the r12 descendant into a replace if > + the descendant exists in r10. The client does not send a delete. > + > + This magic applies to copies, not deletes, so there is a problem > + when the descendant is deleted in the mixed-revision copy in the > + working copy. When faced with a copy of the subtree at r10 and a > + delete of a descendant at r12 the commit doesn't work at present. > + Deleting the descendant is wrong if it does not exist in r10, but > + not deleting it is wrong if it does exist. I suppose the client > + could ask the server, or perhaps use multiple layers of BASE to > + track mixed-revisions (argh!). > > In a deleted subtree, all nodes get marked deleted explicitly > ------------------------------------------------------------- > > >
