Bert Huijben b...@vmoo.com 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
-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 Huijben b...@vmoo.com writes:
The hard cases
Bert Huijben b...@qqmail.nl 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
-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-db upgrade
Bert Huijben b...@qqmail.nl writes
Bert Huijben b...@qqmail.nl 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
Bert Huijben b...@qqmail.nl 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
Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com 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
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 philip.mar...@wandisco.com
wrote:
Bert Huijben b...@qqmail.nl writes:
I really think that it is
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 12:32 PM, Stefan Sperling s...@elego.de 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
On Fri, 2010-08-27 at 12:46 -0400, Hyrum K. Wright wrote:
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 12:32 PM, Stefan Sperling s...@elego.de 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
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
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
philip.mar...@wandisco.com
wrote:
Bert Huijben b...@qqmail.nl writes:
I really
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
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
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 plan
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.
One of the problems with single-db upgrade is that write_entry, called
from svn_wc__write_upgraded_entries, want's to be able to query the
new database using things like svn_wc__db_scan_addition. This fails
because svn_wc__db_pdh_parse_local_abspath encounters old .svn dirs
and creates pdhs with
-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
, Aug 26, 2010 at 10:58, Bert Huijben b...@vmoo.com wrote:
-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
Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com 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
Philip Martin philip.mar...@wandisco.com 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
-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 philip.mar...@wandisco.com writes
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: Re: Two svn_wc__db_t for single-db upgrade
Philip
23 matches
Mail list logo
