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
Cheers,
-g
On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 10:58, Bert Huijben 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
"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
>>
>>
> -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
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 t
24 matches
Mail list logo
