From users-return-816-daniel=haxx.se@subversion.apache.org Wed Feb 3 15:02:44 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 o13E2g0D024612 for ; Wed, 3 Feb 2010 15:02:43 +0100 Received: (qmail 9669 invoked by uid 500); 3 Feb 2010 14:02:37 -0000 Mailing-List: contact users-help@subversion.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Delivered-To: mailing list users@subversion.apache.org Received: (qmail 9661 invoked by uid 99); 3 Feb 2010 14:02:37 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 03 Feb 2010 14:02:37 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=2.2 required=10.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of dave.purrington@gmail.com designates 209.85.218.211 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.218.211] (HELO mail-bw0-f211.google.com) (209.85.218.211) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 03 Feb 2010 14:02:29 +0000 Received: by bwz3 with SMTP id 3so1152331bwz.33 for ; Wed, 03 Feb 2010 06:02:09 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=VUcYP8rlB2A41aXPw0F8ho1WfFdT5oOYnfqToLJ2uHw=; b=TY33hHXyEdtSU/0Wl9TUCMjuWC9EU7JHbMaPve9nyiuXC8kyqRZPpqaRu4tmd5mIUZ l78ruK8QiVXMC7Yowob6YqTYOu5ZJr/GE1OK7MNweMhRyYpBSqsw0aRz8xv8T0Emq2ZE igSxvjTzJgfa5g8aTF6Beh1kfKE8tqrRoeKCw= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=IpPGFLe6hTycpsZWtnmRT41YUq9TNMI3egn7x5Bl8/ul+2MMMCz9QMPHA43hV7paT5 /mcCohG8nVAYra34j3xWYEw1RHEdRUTHmpvFdJb6grjEFbPDz5bq1w0pqKPsaGf9+3lH CuhkL1xaCgw8MC7Rre70eOE2krRuNi0ghPSz4= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.204.6.213 with SMTP id a21mr4051015bka.16.1265205729016; Wed, 03 Feb 2010 06:02:09 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <30DBACA5-2705-4A58-AA02-780050570FA1@bitextender.com> References: <911188a91002021434y265225e2g8ca4d836a5977f73@mail.gmail.com> <4E38120D-43D3-4671-86CE-62AE3CC9D9E5@ryandesign.com> <30DBACA5-2705-4A58-AA02-780050570FA1@bitextender.com> Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2010 09:02:08 -0500 Message-ID: <911188a91002030602q33beb841u9a67cbf1fec5f694@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Re: Deleted directory committed to repo translated to ignored directory locally From: Dave Purrington To: Felix Gilcher Cc: Ryan Schmidt , users@subversion.apache.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0015175884d00bbcc8047eb2aa90 X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org --0015175884d00bbcc8047eb2aa90 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Clever clever. I'm still trying to wrap my head around that idea. I'll look again at the patterns. The fact that no one has heard of this problem makes me think I've missed a source of ignore patterns somewhere. Time to quadruple check. I also see from another reply that the registry is a source of ignore patterns, so I'm going to look there as well. On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 2:59 AM, Felix Gilcher wrote: > > On Feb 3, 2010, at 12:02 AM, Ryan Schmidt wrote: > > > > > On Feb 2, 2010, at 16:34, Dave Purrington wrote: > > > >> The scenario goes like this: > >> =95 Homer svn deletes a folder and commits to the repository. > >> =95 Marge svn updates, and svn reports the folder Homer deleted (= "D > ") > >> =95 Marge runs svn st, some folder is not reported as unversioned= . > >> However, the folder is still on disk (unversioned, i.e. no .svn folder= ) > and is now ignored (revealed by "svn st --no-ignore"). What's odd is that= I > can't even tell how it's being ignored. Marge doesn't have a matching > pattern in her global ignores, and svn propget svn:ignore on the parent > folder reveals nothing useful. All clients using 1.6.6 on Windows. > >> > >> What's also strange is that there are plenty of cases where files or > folders are deleted and post update they show up as unversioned items. Wh= y > the difference? > > > > I've never heard of that happening. Do you have a reproduction recipe > that can recreate this problem? > > Maybe it was ignored after it had been added to the repository (matched b= y > some sort of wildcard pattern or the like). It would show up during regul= ar > commits since it's in the repo and items that are versioned cannot be > ignored. After deleting however, it would no longer be versioned and thus > matched by the ignore. So it would be interesting by which ignore rule it= 's > matched and whether that rule was added after the folder. > > Another possibility would be that someone added the folder even though it > was ignored from the beginning. > > felix > > -- > Felix Gilcher > > Bitextender GmbH > Paul-Heyse-Str. 6 > D-80336 M=FCnchen > > > --0015175884d00bbcc8047eb2aa90 Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Clever clever. I'm still trying to wrap my head around that idea. = I'll look again at the patterns.

The fact that= no one has heard of this problem makes me think I've missed a source o= f ignore patterns somewhere. Time to quadruple check. I also see from anoth= er reply that the registry is a source of ignore patterns, so I'm going= to look there as well.


On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 2:59 AM, Fel= ix Gilcher <felix.gilcher@bitextender.com> wrote:

On Feb 3, 2010, at 12:02 AM, Ryan Schmidt wrote:

>
> On Feb 2, 2010, at 16:34, Dave Purrington wrote:
>
>> The scenario goes like this:
>> =A0 =A0 =A0=95 Homer svn deletes a folder and commits to the repos= itory.
>> =A0 =A0 =A0=95 Marge svn updates, and svn reports the folder Homer= deleted ("D =A0 <some folder>")
>> =A0 =A0 =A0=95 Marge runs svn st, some folder is not reported as u= nversioned.
>> However, the folder is still on disk (unversioned, i.e. no .svn fo= lder) and is now ignored (revealed by "svn st --no-ignore"). What= 's odd is that I can't even tell how it's being ignored. Marge = doesn't have a matching pattern in her global ignores, and svn propget = svn:ignore on the parent folder reveals nothing useful. All clients using 1= .6.6 on Windows.
>>
>> What's also strange is that there are plenty of cases where fi= les or folders are deleted and post update they show up as unversioned item= s. Why the difference?
>
> I've never heard of that happening. Do you have a reproduction rec= ipe that can recreate this problem?

Maybe it was ignored after it had been added to the repository = (matched by some sort of wildcard pattern or the like). It would show up du= ring regular commits since it's in the repo and items that are versione= d cannot be ignored. After deleting however, it would no longer be versione= d and thus matched by the ignore. So it would be interesting by which ignor= e rule it's matched and whether that rule was added after the folder.
Another possibility would be that someone added the folder even though it w= as ignored from the beginning.

felix

--
Felix Gilcher

Bitextender GmbH
Paul-Heyse-Str. 6
D-80336 M=FCnchen



--0015175884d00bbcc8047eb2aa90--