On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 1:10 AM, Johan Corveleyn <jcor...@gmail.com> wrote: > [ Please, if possible, use plain-text on this mailing list, and use > bottom-posting (putting your reply at the bottom, or inline to the > thing you're replying to). More below ... ] > > On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 3:08 PM, <webster.br...@rogers.com> wrote: >> These files were never changed in the first place, that's the weird part. >> We aren't using any local locks in the repo. > > Okay, so definitely a "non-content-changing" revert then. So we're > talking about needless notifications by revert, possibly scaring > users. > > I've quickly tried to reproduce it, based on Bert's explanation of > read-onlyness changes. No need for locks or the svn:needs-lock > property. Just make a file read-only, and run a recursive revert. The > file is made writable again, and revert notifies: > > [[[ > C:\Temp\svntest>svn --version -q > 1.9.3-SlikSvn > > C:\Temp\svntest>svnadmin create repos > > C:\Temp\svntest>svn co file:///c:/Temp/svntest/repos wc > Checked out revision 0. > > C:\Temp\svntest>cd wc > > C:\Temp\svntest\wc>echo This is file 1 > file1.txt > > C:\Temp\svntest\wc>svn add *.txt > A file1.txt > > C:\Temp\svntest\wc>svn ci -mm > Adding file1.txt > Transmitting file data ..done > Committing transaction... > Committed revision 1. > > C:\Temp\svntest\wc>attrib +R file1.txt ### (making read-only) > > C:\Temp\svntest\wc>svn st > > C:\Temp\svntest\wc>svn revert -R . > Reverted 'file1.txt' > ]]] > > > Is this similar to what could have happened, Brent? I'm assuming it's > not Windows-specific, because you reported the problem for a 1.8.14 > svn client on Centos6.5 Linux. Maybe other variants of changes in > permissions, executability or file ownership also give the same > behaviour. > > I agree this is an issue, but I'm not sure if there is only one issue > or two :-). > > 1) Is it OK for revert to change file metadata? Is that intended > behaviour? Maybe it's OK for revert to change file metadata if the > file also has content-changes that need to be reverted, but not if the > file only has metadata-changes? > > 2) If we revert metadata-only-changed files, should revert notify > about this? If it notifies for a metadata-only change, maybe the > notification should indicate this?
FYI: Lost track of this for a while, but now I've filed an issue for this, so we don't forget about it: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SVN-4637 (Revert affects unchanged files with changed permissions) I think it's wrong for revert to change the permissions of an unchanged file. I think 'revert' should not care about such files, since 'status' doesn't report them either. -- Johan
