On 28.08.2010 02:37, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 01:20:31PM -0400, Bob Archer wrote:
>> Or, if not, the user can do a new checkout, and then use a compare
>> tool to apply your pending changes to your new WC. This means, don't
>> auto-update a WC that has pending changes in it
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 01:20:31PM -0400, Bob Archer wrote:
> Or, if not, the user can do a new checkout, and then use a compare
> tool to apply your pending changes to your new WC. This means, don't
> auto-update a WC that has pending changes in it.
There won't be any auto-update, I think. The pl
> On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 05:54:38PM +0100, Julian Foad wrote:
> > The trouble is, people often won't find out until some time after
> > they've upgraded, especially if it's a WC they aren't working on
> at the
> > moment and they try to come back to work on it some weeks later.
> And
> > for most
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 05:54:38PM +0100, Julian Foad wrote:
> The trouble is, people often won't find out until some time after
> they've upgraded, especially if it's a WC they aren't working on at the
> moment and they try to come back to work on it some weeks later. And
> for most people un-upg
On Fri, 2010-08-27 at 12:46 -0400, Hyrum K. Wright wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 12:32 PM, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 12:03:04PM -0400, Bob Archer wrote:
> >> I'm just talking as a user here... and not an svn dev... but do you
> >> really need to spend time on a 1.6 to 1
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 12:32 PM, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 12:03:04PM -0400, Bob Archer wrote:
>> I'm just talking as a user here... and not an svn dev... but do you
>> really need to spend time on a 1.6 to 1.7 WC upgrade? Why not just
>> have 1.7 not work with 1.7 WCs and
> Back up a step. *What* data do you need to query? Maybe there is a
> more
> direct solution.
>
> I very much dislike a special mode for wc_db. It just screams
> "hack".
>
> On Aug 27, 2010 10:07 AM, "Philip Martin"
>
> wrote:
> > "Bert Huijben" writes:
> >
> >> I really think that it is much
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 12:03:04PM -0400, Bob Archer wrote:
> I'm just talking as a user here... and not an svn dev... but do you
> really need to spend time on a 1.6 to 1.7 WC upgrade? Why not just
> have 1.7 not work with 1.7 WCs and tell the users they need to do a
> new checkout with 1.7. I mea
Back up a step. *What* data do you need to query? Maybe there is a more
direct solution.
I very much dislike a special mode for wc_db. It just screams "hack".
On Aug 27, 2010 10:07 AM, "Philip Martin"
wrote:
> "Bert Huijben" writes:
>
>> I really think that it is much easier to just walk the en
Greg Stein writes:
> Back up a step. *What* data do you need to query? Maybe there is a more
> direct solution.
Upgrade calls _scan_addition on the parent when writing a node, see
entries.c:write_entry.
> I very much dislike a special mode for wc_db. It just screams "hack".
If I put the new da
"Bert Huijben" writes:
> I really think that it is much easier to just walk the entries files using
> an old style-lock, constructing a new sqlite db 'upgrade.db' somewhere
> outside the normal location using upgrade specific code.
That might be another way to do it. If we construct a temporary
"Bert Huijben" writes:
> In case of a delete of copy you can have
>
> BASE normal (checked out N levels up)
> NODE_DATA normal (descendant of copy 2 levels up)
> NODE_DATA normal (child of copy 1 level up)
> WORKING: deleted (node itself)
>
> _read_info() will give you the information from workin
> -Original Message-
> From: Philip Martin [mailto:philip.mar...@wandisco.com]
> Sent: vrijdag 27 augustus 2010 14:57
> To: Bert Huijben
> Cc: 'Bert Huijben'; 'Greg Stein'; dev@subversion.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Two svn_wc__db_t for single-
"Bert Huijben" writes:
> But even in that case there can be different information in the parent stub
> and the child directory itself.
That's why I want to use the database.
>
>> > So you are suggesting that we change the DB API's to provide this
>> > information (or keep providing this multi-d
> -Original Message-
> From: Philip Martin [mailto:philip.mar...@wandisco.com]
> Sent: vrijdag 27 augustus 2010 11:50
> To: Bert Huijben
> Cc: 'Greg Stein'; dev@subversion.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Two svn_wc__db_t for single-db upgrade
>
> "Bert
"Bert Huijben" writes:
> The hard cases, like missing and obstructions of metadata are not handled
> and cannot be handled by the single-db WC-DB api as these cannot occur there
> . (There are no tests for this, and anything that looks like a test for this
> is disabled for some 4th tree reason).
On 26.08.2010 22:00, Bert Huijben wrote:
>
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Philip Martin [mailto:philip.mar...@wandisco.com]
>> Sent: donderdag 26 augustus 2010 21:33
>> To: Greg Stein
>> Cc: Bert Huijben; dev@subversion.apache.org
>> Subject:
> -Original Message-
> From: Philip Martin [mailto:philip.mar...@wandisco.com]
> Sent: donderdag 26 augustus 2010 21:33
> To: Greg Stein
> Cc: Bert Huijben; dev@subversion.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Two svn_wc__db_t for single-db upgrade
>
> Philip Martin writes
Philip Martin writes:
> [I'm aware that we don't add incomplete children when we add a
> complete parent, but the children don't care about siblings. And it
> should be easy to fix.]
Turns out we do this the right way. We add a parent, and incomplete
directory children (plus any files) in a si
Greg Stein writes:
> I'm with Bert. The entry writing is used *only* for upgrades. It may
> as well be tuned for exactly that: track any information you need
> while performing the upgrade.
I realise we can do that, but I don't see why it's better. It means
creating/using our own database in me
I'm with Bert. The entry writing is used *only* for upgrades. It may
as well be tuned for exactly that: track any information you need
while performing the upgrade.
Also remember that the wc.db file that is being constructed during the
upgrade process really should be called something like wc.db.u
"Bert Huijben" writes:
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Philip Martin [mailto:philip.mar...@wandisco.com]
>> Sent: donderdag 26 augustus 2010 16:34
>> To: dev@subversion.apache.org
>> Subject: Two svn_wc__db_t for single-db upgrade
>>
>> One of the problems with single-db upgrade is that w
> -Original Message-
> From: Philip Martin [mailto:philip.mar...@wandisco.com]
> Sent: donderdag 26 augustus 2010 16:34
> To: dev@subversion.apache.org
> Subject: Two svn_wc__db_t for single-db upgrade
>
> One of the problems with single-db upgrade is that write_entry, called
> from svn_
23 matches
Mail list logo
