> -----Original Message-----
> From: s...@apache.org [mailto:s...@apache.org]
> Sent: dinsdag 9 juli 2013 11:35
> To: comm...@subversion.apache.org
> Subject: svn commit: r1501163 - in /subversion/trunk/subversion:
> include/private/svn_wc_private.h libsvn_client/checkout.c
> libsvn_wc/adm_files.c
> 
> Author: stsp
> Date: Tue Jul  9 09:35:12 2013
> New Revision: 1501163
> 
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/r1501163
> Log:
> Allow 'svn checkout' to work within a working copy that is locked.
> Fixes a regression from 1.7.
> 
> Reported by: Frank Loeffler <knarf_at_cct lsu edu>
> See http://svn.haxx.se/users/archive-2013-07/0066.shtml
> 
> * subversion/include/private/svn_wc_private.h
>   (svn_wc__init_adm): Declare.
> 
> * subversion/libsvn_client/checkout.c
>   (initialize_area): Use svn_wc__init_adm() instead of
> svn_wc_ensure_adm4().
>    The latter scans upwards for an existing admin area to check for existing
>    working copies, which we don't need to do when creating a new WC.
> 
> * subversion/libsvn_wc/adm_files.c
>   (svn_wc__init_adm): New function, a thin wrapper around init_adm().
>    This creates a new admin area at a specified local abspath, without
>    first scanning upwards for an existing admin area. We could also have
>    created svn_wc_ensure_adm5() with a new 'is_checkout' argument, but
>    we're trying to reduce the public set of libsvn_wc API functions.

I haven't tested this, but this currently appears to remove the safety net 
around:
$ rm trunk
$ svn co URL trunk
(which would produce an error and now two working copies)

Or:
$ svn rm trunk
$ svn co URL trunk
(which will now produce two working copies, with the first partially obstructed)

Or even:
$ svn up --set-depth excluded trunk
$ svn co URL trunk

In all these cases 1.6 would have behaved one way, and with single-db we behave 
in a different way as we don't just attach subdirectories in the parent wc.db.

This patch might fix a few use cases, but I don't think it solves a real 
problem... And it might create a whole heap of new propblems

        Bert 


Reply via email to