From dev-return-2746-daniel=haxx.se@subversion.apache.org Fri Mar 19 02:34:31 2010 Return-Path: Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by giant.haxx.se (8.14.3/8.14.3/Debian-9) with SMTP id o2J1YTx2012076 for ; Fri, 19 Mar 2010 02:34:30 +0100 Received: (qmail 28170 invoked by uid 500); 19 Mar 2010 01:34:32 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@subversion.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Delivered-To: mailing list dev@subversion.apache.org Received: (qmail 28161 invoked by uid 99); 19 Mar 2010 01:34:32 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 19 Mar 2010 01:34:32 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.6 required=10.0 tests=AWL,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_NEUTRAL X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: neutral (athena.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [192.109.42.8] (HELO einhorn.in-berlin.de) (192.109.42.8) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 19 Mar 2010 01:34:23 +0000 X-Envelope-From: neels@elego.de Received: from [192.168.0.110] (p57A0BC1E.dip.t-dialin.net [87.160.188.30]) (authenticated bits=0) by einhorn.in-berlin.de (8.13.6/8.13.6/Debian-1) with ESMTP id o2J1XX5o010289 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 19 Mar 2010 02:33:34 +0100 Message-ID: <4BA2D46D.8040703@elego.de> Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2010 02:33:33 +0100 From: Neels J Hofmeyr Organization: elego Software Solutions GmbH User-Agent: Mozilla-Thunderbird 2.0.0.22 (X11/20090706) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "C. Michael Pilato" CC: Stefan Sperling , dev@subversion.apache.org Subject: Re: What revision should an added not yet commited node have? References: <20100316200128.GB5688@daniel-laptop> <20100316203406.GB22257@noel.stsp.name> <4B9FEF85.302@collab.net> In-Reply-To: <4B9FEF85.302@collab.net> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.0 OpenPGP: id=5862EA90 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------enig091150E7258E9FE1BD24AD47" X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang_at_IN-Berlin_e.V. on 192.109.42.8 --------------enig091150E7258E9FE1BD24AD47 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable C. Michael Pilato wrote: > Stefan Sperling wrote: >> On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 09:01:28PM +0100, Daniel N=C3=A4slund wrote: >>> Hi! >>> >>> When trying to replace entries in the status code I got a couple of t= est >>> failures saying that the revision should be 0 for newly added nodes. >>> Greg pointed out that the entries code set the revision to 0 for thos= e >>> cases while the revision returned from _read_info() sets it to -1. >>> >>> Should we continue to use the 0 value? Is it well established as the >>> revision number of version controlled, not yet committed files or sho= uld >>> we tell 'svn info' and 'svn status' to not output any rev nr at all f= or >>> these nodes? >> I think -1 (invalid revnum) is more appropriate than 0. Nice, I hit that same question like two weeks ago, with svn_client__get_revision_number() upon svn_opt_revision_base for added nodes. I found the same conclusion: it should have always returned -1. I am at the point where I would trial to see how callers deal with a -1 revision number ("would" because I need to study for an exam next week, b= ah). Ideally, we will change the behaviour of this private function when switching it to wc-ng. I hope we don't have to mock up current behaviour = for compat, especially because that depends on parent nodes sometimes. ~Neels --------------enig091150E7258E9FE1BD24AD47 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkui1G0ACgkQCXRUkVhi6pBphgCbBNYVbIsmOYGBMqpctpHOs/wl dogAn0tCtdUh6ln+BN3/pZ8DM8i67XVp =zveN -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------enig091150E7258E9FE1BD24AD47--