Stephen Leake schrieb: > Derek Scherger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> I vaguely recall some mention of a restricted inventory case where only >> one side of a rename was listed in the inventory. Is there a test for >> this? > > Yes; see tests/automate_inventory_restricted/__driver__.lua, search > for the comment: > > -- Rename a file from dir_a to dir_b, bookkeep-only; inventory dir_a > > >> Is it still a problem? > > It reports the correct results.
Well, now that the full paths are outputted and the node states are correct, its not that big of a problem anymore. IIRC the problem was that we depended on the node_ids previously to distinguish between "is an add", "is a drop", and "is a rename". We still do not output the complete node stanza for the other (renamed) node (should we?), but I guess this is more reasonable anyways for implementations than spuriously putting out nodes which reside outside the original restriction (which would be hard to parse). >> BTW, has anyone looked at this branch? I think it's an improvement >> and fixes a couple of invariant failures. Please see my earlier >> emails for details. > > I just looked thru the log and the code. I gather the main point is > the function make_restricted_roster. There are no comments saying what > it does or why it is there (vis-a-vis Richard's recent complaint :). I personally find it a bit hard to understand whats going on there, but this may perfectly be my stupidity. I'll have a closer look tonight. Thomas. -- only dead fish swim with the stream: http://thomaskeller.biz/blog Am Anfang war das Wort: http://www.schäuble-muss-weg.de _______________________________________________ Monotone-devel mailing list Monotone-devel@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/monotone-devel