'Daniel Shahaf' wrote on Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 06:11:56 +0200: > 'Daniel Shahaf' wrote on Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 00:24:13 +0200: > > Paul Maier wrote on Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 22:30:23 +0200: > > > Or if a whole directory is copied (from wc or from URL) and our file > > > is contained somewhere in the depth of that directory? > > > > > > > Agreed, but haven't tested this. > > This currently fails, presumably somewhere under repos_to_wc_copy_single() > -> svn_wc_add4(). I've pinged Julian on IRC, since he was refactoring the > latter function recently. (also, at the moment that function isn't exactly > the clearest piece of code we have) > > So there's still work to be done on this part.
Summary: In the directory case, repos_to_wc_copy_single() makes a temporary wc (via svn_client__checkout_internal()) and then mass-adds it into the wc (which is the temporary wc's parent) via svn_wc_add4(). The alternatives are to make the files non-read-only already in the temporary checkout, or to fix them afterwards: For the former option, need to follow the tracks from svn_client__checkout_internal(), through 3-4 libsvn_client helper functions, through to the libsvn_wc update editor; where, in close_file(), all the file's properties are present, and a call to svn_wc__wq_build_file_install() is made. That call in turn calls svn_wc__maybe_set_read_only(), which --- by examining STATUS, HAVE_BASE, and HAVE_WORK from the svn_wc__db_read_info() call --- can determine that the file in front of it does not have a repository node (crucially, it does that by consulting with the PARENT wc, not with the temporary sub-wc), and therefore shouldn't be mark read-only. For the latter option, svn_wc_add4() (case #1) calls svn_wc_copy3(metadata_only=TRUE), which could be taught somehow to fix the permissions as it walks the tree. To me, that seems like a fair amount of work for little gain. And just this archeology has exhausted me. So I don't think I'll be implementing this at the moment. If someone cares enough about this, they can send a patch (or suggest an easier implementation). Lastly, much thanks to Philip Martin for his IRC help with the WC parts of this (in particularly, the wc_db interfacing and observing that the wc.db being used is the wrong one). Daniel
