Greg Stein wrote: > On Jul 17, 2012 2:06 PM, "Julian Foad" <julianf...@btopenworld.com> wrote: >> * - If any path is added (with add_*) or deleted/moved/rotated, then >> + * ### JAF: Or copied? >
> Yes. The add_* is too narrow. > >> + * ### JAF: Rewrite as: "If any path is added or removed or replaced >> + * (with add_*, delete, copy, move, rotate), then ..."? > > Yes. > >> * an svn_editor_alter_directory() call must be made for its parent >> * directory with the target/eventual set of children. >> + * ### JAF: Even if initial & eventual sets of children are identical? > > No. If they are identical, then you are replacing one or more nodes. OK. In that case, 'replace' and 'rotate' are superfluous in this rule as they don't change the existence of a node at a given path. The rule should be: If any path is added or removed (with add_*, delete, copy or move), such that the target/eventual set of children of its parent directory differs from the initial set, then an svn_editor_alter_directory() call must be made for its parent directory with the target/eventual set of children. Or we could shorten that to: If the target/eventual set of children of a directory differs from its initial set of children, then an svn_editor_alter_directory() call must be made for the directory, specifying the target/eventual set of children. >> * >> * - svn_editor_add_directory() -- Another svn_editor_add_*() call must >> + * ### JAF: Or copy-here or move-here call? > > Or rotate, yes. Rotate can't create a node at a given path where there wasn't a node before, so there needs to be an add or copy-here or move-here[1]. >> * follow for each child mentioned in the @a children argument of any >> * svn_editor_add_directory() call. >> + * ### JAF: Also for each new child of any alter_directory() call? > > Yes. > >> * >> * - For each node created with add_*, if its parent was created using >> + * ### JAF: node created with add_* or copy or move-here? > > No. Copy/move arrives with children already. > >> * svn_editor_add_directory(), then the new child node MUST have been >> * mentioned in the @a children parameter of the parent's creation. >> * This allows the parent directory to properly mark the child as >> * "incomplete" until the child's add_* call arrives. Are you saying, if the child is created by 'copy' or 'move' then the WC won't need to mark it 'incomplete' so the editor doesn't need to pre-notify it in a 'children' argument? This seems to be a bit too specific to the current needs of WC-NG. But wait-a-sec. We can simply delete this rule, because it is already redundant with the first rule which already says that if a new child is to be added in any way then the new list of children must have been provided in a 'children' argument, period. >> + * ### JAF: Also for each new child of any alter_directory() call? > > Yes. OK. A question about delete. If a path is deleted and not replaced, then the new list of children for the parent directory must have been provided (first rule). But conversely, if a path is removed from a directory by alter_directory's 'children' parameter, then must there necessarily be a delete or move-away for that child? - Julian [1] 'move-here' or 'copy-here' meaning a move or copy where 'this' path is the target.
