On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 13:12, Stefan Sperling <s...@elego.de> wrote: > On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 12:36:21PM -0400, Greg Stein wrote: >> On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 06:06, <s...@apache.org> wrote: >> >... >> > +++ subversion/trunk/subversion/libsvn_wc/wc_db.c Tue Mar 27 10:06:41 2012 >> >... >> > @@ -3657,7 +3657,7 @@ db_op_copy(svn_wc__db_wcroot_t *src_wcro >> > dst_op_depth, >> > dst_parent_relpath, >> > presence_map, dst_presence)); >> > - if (is_move) >> > + if (is_move && status != svn_wc__db_status_added) >> > SVN_ERR(svn_sqlite__bind_int64(stmt, 7, 1)); >> >> Hrm. What happens if the status is svn_wc__db_status_copied? (another >> possible result from scan_addition) Don't you want to specifically >> test for status_moved_here? > > As far as I understand, this could be the first time the node is moved. > So it might be status normal. > > I thought briefly about performing a switch on 'status' to make sure > we consider all cases, but decided to defer that for later and just > fix the 'add' case for now. > > Considering 'svn cp A B; svn mv B C' is something a user could do, > and given that this sequence doesn't currently result in useful DB state, > additional work is definitely needed here.
Maybe leave a ### marker in there with a comment on current problems and initial thoughts on future work? I'd hate to lose your mind-state and have that code get shipped half-done. Cheers, -g
