Ping... any Ev2 gurus?

Especially my question about delete, at the end of this email...
 
I (Julian Foad) wrote:

> Greg Stein wrote:
>>>    * - If any path is added (with add_*) or deleted/moved/rotated, then
[...]
>>>  + *   ### 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?

This 'delete' question is, essentially, starting from the following tree of 
three nodes:

  D
  D/D1
  D/D2

which of the following are valid ways to delete 'D1'?

  (1)
  delete('D/D1')
  complete()

  (2)
  alter_dir('D', children={D2})
  complete()

  (3)
  alter_dir('D', children={D2})
  delete('D/D1')
  complete()

  (4)
  delete('D/D1')
  alter_dir('D', children={D2})
  complete()

Sequence (1) is forbidden by the first rule; (2) and (3) and (4) are not 
forbidden by the Driving Order Restrictions as currently stated in svn_editor.h 
as far as I can see.

Sending a delete() operation for each deleted child as well as an 
alter_directory() is of course redundant, so in the interest of efficiency, and 
thinking just of the deletion of many files, I assume we would consider making 
the delete() call optional or forbidden; but I don't know what's already been 
decided or if there are other factors in play.

- Julian

Reply via email to