<chapter id="misc-docs-directory_versioning">
  <title>Directory Versioning</title>

  <simplesect>

    <blockquote>
      <para>The three cardinal virtues of a master technologist
        are: laziness, impatience, and hubris." &mdash;Larry
        Wall</para>
    </blockquote>

    <para>This describes some of the theoretical pitfalls around the
      (possibly arrogant) notion that one can simply version
      directories just as one versions files.</para>

  </simplesect>

  <!-- ================================================================= -->
  <!-- ======================== SECTION 1 ============================== -->
  <!-- ================================================================= -->
  <sect1 id="misc-docs-directory_versioning-sect-1">
    <title>Directory Revisions</title>
    
    <para>To begin, recall that the Subversion repository is an array
      of trees.  Each tree represents the application of a new atomic
      commit, and is called a @dfn{revision}.  This is very different
      from a CVS repository, which stores file histories in a
      collection of RCS files (and doesn't track
      tree-structure.)</para>

    <para>So when we refer to <quote>revision 4 of
      <filename>foo.c</filename></quote> (written
      <filename>foo.c:4</filename>) in CVS, this means the fourth
      distinct version of <filename>foo.c</filename>&mdash;but in
      Subversion this means <quote>the version of
      <filename>foo.c</filename> in the fourth revision
      (tree)</quote>.  It's quite possible that
      <filename>foo.c</filename> has never changed at all since
      revision 1!  In other words, in Subversion, different revision
      numbers of the same versioned item do <emphasis>not</emphasis>
      imply different contents.</para>

    <para>Nevertheless, the contents of <filename>foo.c:4</filename>
      is still well-defined.  The file <filename>foo.c</filename> in
      revision 4 has a specific text and properties.</para>

    <para>Suppose, now, that we extend this concept to directories.
      If we have a directory <filename>DIR</filename>, define
      <literal>DIR:N</literal> to be <quote>the directory DIR in the
      fourth revision.</quote> The contents are defined to be a
      particular set of directory entries (<literal>dirents</literal>)
      and properties.</para>

    <para>So far, so good.  The concept of versioning directories
      seems fine in the repository&mdash;the repository is very
      theoretically pure anyway.  However, because working copies
      allow mixed revisions, it's easy to create problematic
      use-cases.  </para>

  </sect1>

  <!-- ================================================================= -->
  <!-- ======================== SECTION 2 ============================== -->
  <!-- ================================================================= -->
  <sect1 id="misc-docs-directory_versioning-sect-2">
    <title>The Lagging Directory</title>

    <sect2 id="misc-docs-directory_versioning-sect-2.1">
      <title>The Problem</title>

      <para><emphasis>This is the first part of the <quote>Greg
          Hudson</quote> problem, so named because he was the first
          one to bring it up and define it well.</emphasis> :-)</para>

      <para>Suppose our working copy has directory
        <filename>DIR:1</filename> containing file
        <filename>foo:1</filename>, along with some other files.  We
        remove <filename>foo</filename> and commit.</para>

      <para>Already, we have a problem: our working copy still claims
        to have <filename>DIR:1</filename>.  But on the repository,
        revision 1 of <filename>DIR</filename> is @emph{defined} to
        contain <filename>foo</filename>&mdash;and our working copy
        <filename>DIR</filename> clearly does not have it anymore.
        How can we truthfully say that we still have
        <filename>DIR:1</filename>?</para>

      <para>One answer is to force <filename>DIR</filename> to be
        updated when we commit <filename>foo</filename>'s deletion.
        Assuming that our commit created revision 2, we would
        immediately update our working copy to
        <filename>DIR:2</filename>.  Then the client and server would
        both agree that <filename>DIR:2</filename> does not contain
        foo, and that <filename>DIR:2</filename> is indeed exactly
        what is in the working copy.</para>

      <para>This solution has nasty, un-user-friendly side effects,
        though.  It's likely that other people may have committed
        before us, possibly adding new properties to
        <filename>DIR</filename>, or adding a new file
        <filename>bar</filename>.  Now pretend our committed deletion
        creates revision 5 in the repository.  If we instantly update
        our local <filename>DIR</filename> to 5, that means
        unexpectedly receiving a copy of <filename>bar</filename> and
        some new propchanges.  This clearly violates a UI principle:
        ``the client will never change your working copy until you ask
        it to.''  Committing changes to the repository is a
        server-write operation only; it should @emph{not} modify your
        working data!</para>

      <para>Another solution is to do the naive thing: after
        committing the deletion of <filename>foo</filename>, simply
        stop tracking the file in the <filename>.svn</filename>
        administrative directory.  The client then loses all knowledge
        of the file.</para>

      <para>But this doesn't work either: if we now update our working
        copy, the communication between client and server is
        incorrect.  The client still believes that it has
        <filename>DIR:1</filename>&mdash;which is false, since a
        <quote>true</quote> <filename>DIR:1</filename> contains
        <filename>foo</filename>.  The client gives this incorrect
        report to the repository, and the repository decides that in
        order to update to revision 2, <filename>foo</filename> must
        be deleted.  Thus the repository sends a bogus (or at least
        unnecessary) deletion command.</para>

    </sect2>

    <sect2 id="misc-docs-directory_versioning-sect-2.2">
      <title>The Solution</title>
      
      <para>After deleting <filename>foo</filename> and committing,
        the file is <emphasis>not</emphasis> totally forgotten by the
        <filename>.svn</filename> directory.  While the file is no
        longer considered to be under version control, it is still
        secretly remembered as having been
        <quote>deleted</quote>.</para>

      <para>When the user updates the working copy, the client
        correctly informs the server that the file is already missing
        from its local <filename>DIR:1</filename>; therefore the
        repository doesn't try to re-delete it when patching the
        client up to revision 2.</para>

      <sidebar>
        <title>Note to developers</title>

        <para>How the <quote>deleted</quote>
          flag works under the hood.</para>
        
        <itemizedlist>

          <listitem>
            <para>The <command>svn status</command> command won't
              display a deleted item, unless you make the deleted item
              the specific target of status.</para>
          </listitem>

          <listitem>
            <para>When a deleted item's parent is updated, one of two
            things will happen:</para>

            <orderedlist>
              <listitem>
                <para>The repository will re-add the item, thereby
                  overwriting the entire entry.  (no more
                  <quote>deleted</quote> flag)</para>
              </listitem>
              <listitem>
                <para>The repository will say nothing about the item,
                  which means that it's fully aware that your item is
                  gone, and this is the correct state to be in.  In
                  this case, the entire entry is removed.  (no more
                  <quote>deleted</quote> flag)</para>
              </listitem>
            </orderedlist>
          </listitem>

          <listitem>
            <para>If a user schedules an item for addition that has
              the same name as a <quote>deleted</quote> entry, then
              entry will have both flags simultaneously.  This is
              perfectly fine:</para>
            
            <orderedlist>
              <listitem>
                <para>The commit-crawler will notice both flags and
                  do a <function>delete()</function> and then an
                  <function>add()</function>.  This ensures that the
                  transaction is built correctly. (without the
                  <function>delete()</function>, the
                  <function>add()</function> would be on top of an
                  already-existing item.)</para>
              </listitem>
              <listitem>
                <para>When the commit completes, the client rewrites
                  the entry as normal.  (no more
                  <quote>deleted</quote> flag)</para>
              </listitem>
            </orderedlist>
          </listitem>

        </itemizedlist>

      </sidebar>

    </sect2>

  </sect1>
  <!-- ================================================================= -->
  <!-- ======================== SECTION 3 ============================== -->
  <!-- ================================================================= -->
  <sect1 id="misc-docs-directory_versioning-sect-3">
    <title>The Overeager Directory</title>
    
    <para><emphasis>This is the 2nd part of the <quote>Greg
          Hudson</quote> problem.</emphasis></para>
    
    <sect2 id="misc-docs-directory_versioning-sect-3.1">
      <title>The Problem</title>
      
      <para>Again, suppose our working copy has directory
        <filename>DIR:1</filename> containing file
        <filename>foo:1</filename>, along with some other files.
        </para>

      <para>Now, unbeknownst to us, somebody else adds a new file
        <filename>bar</filename> to this directory, creating revision
        2 (and <filename>DIR:2</filename>).</para>

      <para>Now we add a property to <filename>DIR</filename> and
        commit, which creates revision 3.  Our working-copy
        <filename>DIR</filename> is now marked as being at revision
        3.</para>

      <para>Of course, this is false; our working copy does @emph{not}
        have <filename>DIR:3</filename>, because the
        <quote>true</quote> <filename>DIR:3</filename> on the
        repository contains the new file <filename>bar</filename>.
        Our working copy has no knowledge of <filename>bar</filename>
        at all.</para>

      <para>Again, we can't follow our commit of
        <filename>DIR</filename> with an automatic update (and
        addition of <filename>bar</filename>).  As mentioned
        previously, commits are a one-way write operation; they must
        not change working copy data.</para>

    </sect2>

    <sect2 id="misc-docs-directory_versioning-sect-3.2">
      <title>The Solution</title>
      
      <para>Let's enumerate exactly those times when a directory's
        local revision number changes:</para>

      <variablelist>

        <varlistentry>
          <term>When a directory is updated:</term>
          <listitem>
            <para>If the directory is either the direct target of an
              update command, or is a child of an updated directory,
              it will be bumped (along with many other siblings and
              children) to a uniform revision number.</para>
          </listitem>
        </varlistentry>

        <varlistentry>
          <term>When a directory is committed:</term>
          <listitem>
            <para>A directory can only be considered a
              <quote>committed object</quote> if it has a new property
              change.  (Otherwise, to <quote>commit a
              directory</quote> really implies that its modified
              children are being committed, and only such children
              will have local revisions bumped.)</para>
          </listitem>
        </varlistentry>

      </variablelist>
      
      <para>In this light, it's clear that our <quote>overeager
        directory</quote> problem only happens in the second
        situation&mdash;those times when we're committing directory
        propchanges.</para>

      <para>Thus the answer is simply not to allow property-commits on
        directories that are out-of-date.  It sounds a bit
        restrictive, but there's no other way to keep directory
        revisions accurate.</para>

      <sidebar>
        <title>Note to developers</title>

        <para>This restriction is enforced by the filesystem merge()
          routine.</para>

        <para>Once <function>merge()</function> has established that
          {ancestor, source, target} are all different node-rev-ids,
          it examines the property-keys of ancestor and target.  If
          they're <emphasis>different</emphasis>, it returns a
          conflict error.</para>
      </sidebar>

    </sect2>

  </sect1>

  <!-- ================================================================= -->
  <!-- ======================== SECTION 4 ============================== -->
  <!-- ================================================================= -->
  <sect1 id="misc-docs-directory_versioning-sect-4">
    <title>User Impact</title>

    <para>Really, the Subversion client seems to have two
      difficult&mdash;almost contradictory&mdash;goals.</para>

    <para>First, it needs to make the user experience friendly, which
      generally means being a bit <quote>sloppy</quote> about deciding
      what a user can or cannot do.  This is why it allows
      mixed-revision working copies, and why it tries to let users
      execute local tree-changing operations (delete, add, move, copy)
      in situations that aren't always perfectly, theoretically
      <quote>safe</quote> or pure.
      </para>

    <para>Second, the client tries to keep the working copy in
      correctly in sync with the repository using as little
      communication as possible.  Of course, this is made much harder
      by the first goal!</para>

    <para>So in the end, there's a tension here, and the resolutions
      to problems can vary.  In one case (the <quote>lagging
      directory</quote>), the problem can be solved through a bit of
      clever entry tracking in the client.  In the other case
      (<quote>the overeager directory</quote>), the only solution is
      to restrict some of the theoretical laxness allowed by the
      client.</para>

  </sect1>

</chapter>

<!--
local variables: 
sgml-parent-document: ("misc-docs.xml" "chapter")
end:
-->
