You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.

Posted to dev@subversion.apache.org by Karl Fogel <kf...@newton.ch.collab.net> on 2001/11/01 16:49:17 UTC

Re: Rev 362 libmod_dav_sn.so: undefined symbol: svn_repos_get_logs

Ben Collins-Sussman fixed this by logging into my box and adding a
file I forgot to add.  Sorry for the inconvenience.

(I think I want a way to make "svn st" show unversioned files ending
in ".c" or ".h", sigh...)

-K

David Summers <da...@summersoft.fay.ar.us> writes:
> Rev 362 compiled fine but when I try to run the apache server it aborts 
> with:
> 
> Cannot load /etc/httpd/modules/libmod_dav_svn.so into server: 
> /etc/httpd/modules/libmod_dav_svn.so: undefined symbol: svn_repos_get_logs
> 
> I looked at rev 362 source code and see references to svn_repos_get_logs 
> but no code definition.
> 
> Rev 353 works fine.
> 
> Let me know if I can provide any more information.
> 
>    - David Summers
> 
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org

Re: unversioned files (was: Re: Rev 362 libmod_dav_sn.so: undefined symbol: svn_repos_get_logs)

Posted by Karl Fogel <kf...@newton.ch.collab.net>.

RADICS Peter <mi...@lbcons.net> writes:
> ps: please shout now if you think this whole depth idea is bogus, 'cos I
>     still intend to do this rewrite eventually, if The Board approves :)

It sounds like a good solution, yeah!

IMHO, though, write the documentation first (the user-oriented,
behavioral documentation, that is), and post it here when ready,
before you've gotten too far in the coding. :-)

-K

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org

Re: unversioned files (was: Re: Rev 362 libmod_dav_sn.so: undefined symbol: svn_repos_get_logs)

Posted by RADICS Peter <mi...@lbcons.net>.

On Sun, Nov 04, 2001 at 09:40:27AM +0100, Sander Striker wrote:
> > From: Kevin Pilch-Bisson [mailto:kevin@pilch-bisson.net]
[SNIP]
> > Note that the code is already there for svn st -u.  Also note
> > that someone,
> > can't remember exactly who, said they wanted to work on svn st, so that it
> > show results as they came back from the server, instead of
> > waiting until all
> > them were done.
> 
> IIRC that was Peter Radics who said this on irc.
> 
> >  So maybe hold off on this for a while, but keep
> > in mind that
> > a little refactoring is all that is really needed.
> 
> Sander

Yes, it was me :)

My original problem was "svn st -n" not showing directory entries, only
file entries. 

Yoshiki pointed out the WebDAV Depth concept earlier, and I believe that
is the correct solution to all the problems with recursive behaviour
(cvs doesn't have this problem, 'cos it doesn't version directories).
My idea was to use '-N' '-n' and '-r' for Depth={0,1,infinite}
respectively, with a meaningful default Depth for each subcommand.

I thought I'd write up a quick patch to fix the status issue like this,
but then I also noticed that the current code collects all status
information before spits out anything.  That's not very nice, especially
with --update.

So now I came to a conclusion that I should use one the crawlers/editors
to do the status stuff, so I started looking at the existing code, and
found out that all of the current subcommands only think of a boolean
recursion flag, with every "crawler" implementing this recursion thing
almost, but not completely differently from the other :)

In my opinion, replacing that "svn_boolean_t recurse" (or "descend",
etc) with "enum svn_depth_t depth" is the Right Way to handle this
problem, and I also have this feeling that we can do away with some of
our current crawlers, 'cos a single generic crawler with this depth
concept could do all the work for all our editors.

So, the status quo: I started out on a quick fix for "svn st", and ended
up on a quest to rewamp _all_ of the subcommands.
This quest is a necessary one on the long run, in my opinion, but it'll
take a lot more than I first estimated for the status patch.

In other words: feel free to hack away with "svn status" right now, I
won't touch it in a while :[

cheers,
mitch

ps: please shout now if you think this whole depth idea is bogus, 'cos I
    still intend to do this rewrite eventually, if The Board approves :)
-- 
// Radics Peter <mi...@lbcons.net> (http://lbcons.net)
//
// "If human beings don't keep exercising their lips, 
//  their brains start working." -- Ford Prefect

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org

RE: unversioned files (was: Re: Rev 362 libmod_dav_sn.so: undefined symbol: svn_repos_get_logs)

Posted by Sander Striker <st...@apache.org>.

> From: Kevin Pilch-Bisson [mailto:kevin@pilch-bisson.net]
> Sent: 04 November 2001 03:51
> On Sat, Nov 03, 2001 at 05:03:45AM -0800, Greg Stein wrote:
> > On Sat, Nov 03, 2001 at 12:00:11AM -0600, Karl Fogel wrote:
> ...
> >
> > > What is "the heuristics answer"?
> >
> > You had said that 'svn st' could only show files that "should" be added.
> > That "should" is awfully scary... I say, show 'em all, or show
> none. But we
> > just got done saying 'show none' sucks :-) That leaves: show 'em all ...
>
> Well a heuristic could be something like 95% of the .c files in
> this dir are
> versioned, so maybe this should be too, whereas no .o files are,
> so we wouldn't
> suggest adding them.  However, I agree with Greg, show all of them not in
> svn:ignore.
> >
> > > > However this works, we have a serious use case problem.
> "What files have I
> > > > written, which need to be added?" There is no way to answer
> that right now.
> > >
> > > +1 on "svn st" showing unversioned files.  I'll even make you a deal:
> > > you file the issue, and I'll write the code. :-)
> >
> Note that the code is already there for svn st -u.  Also note
> that someone,
> can't remember exactly who, said they wanted to work on svn st, so that it
> show results as they came back from the server, instead of
> waiting until all
> them were done.

IIRC that was Peter Radics who said this on irc.

>  So maybe hold off on this for a while, but keep
> in mind that
> a little refactoring is all that is really needed.

Sander


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org

Re: unversioned files (was: Re: Rev 362 libmod_dav_sn.so: undefined symbol: svn_repos_get_logs)

Posted by Kevin Pilch-Bisson <ke...@pilch-bisson.net>.

On Sat, Nov 03, 2001 at 05:03:45AM -0800, Greg Stein wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 03, 2001 at 12:00:11AM -0600, Karl Fogel wrote:
...
> 
> > What is "the heuristics answer"?
> 
> You had said that 'svn st' could only show files that "should" be added.
> That "should" is awfully scary... I say, show 'em all, or show none. But we
> just got done saying 'show none' sucks :-) That leaves: show 'em all ...

Well a heuristic could be something like 95% of the .c files in this dir are
versioned, so maybe this should be too, whereas no .o files are, so we wouldn't
suggest adding them.  However, I agree with Greg, show all of them not in
svn:ignore.
> 
> > > However this works, we have a serious use case problem. "What files have I
> > > written, which need to be added?" There is no way to answer that right now.
> > 
> > +1 on "svn st" showing unversioned files.  I'll even make you a deal:
> > you file the issue, and I'll write the code. :-)
> 
Note that the code is already there for svn st -u.  Also note that someone, 
can't remember exactly who, said they wanted to work on svn st, so that it
show results as they came back from the server, instead of waiting until all
them were done.  So maybe hold off on this for a while, but keep in mind that
a little refactoring is all that is really needed.
-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Kevin Pilch-Bisson                    http://www.pilch-bisson.net
     "Historically speaking, the presences of wheels in Unix
     has never precluded their reinvention." - Larry Wall
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Re: unversioned files (was: Re: Rev 362 libmod_dav_sn.so: undefined symbol: svn_repos_get_logs)

Posted by Karl Fogel <kf...@newton.ch.collab.net>.

Greg Stein <gs...@lyra.org> writes:
> You had said that 'svn st' could only show files that "should" be added.
> That "should" is awfully scary... I say, show 'em all, or show none. But we
> just got done saying 'show none' sucks :-) That leaves: show 'em all ...

Huh.  I meant to be clear that I wasn't actually proposing we
implement that pie-in-the-sky feature; guess I wasn't.

> Issue #546. P2. Assigned to you. :-)

You got it, baby.

-K

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org

Re: unversioned files (was: Re: Rev 362 libmod_dav_sn.so: undefined symbol: svn_repos_get_logs)

Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@lyra.org>.

On Sat, Nov 03, 2001 at 12:00:11AM -0600, Karl Fogel wrote:
> Greg Stein <gs...@lyra.org> writes:
>...
> > I don't understand your comment about "lots of '?' files". I never have lots
> > of ? files in my WC. What's wrong with your WC? And I don't like the
> > heuristics answer. That is too "magical".
> 
> There's nothing "wrong" with my WC, and I have lots of '?' files in
> it.  I suppose your desk is tidier than mine, too. :-)

hehe :-)

> What is "the heuristics answer"?

You had said that 'svn st' could only show files that "should" be added.
That "should" is awfully scary... I say, show 'em all, or show none. But we
just got done saying 'show none' sucks :-) That leaves: show 'em all ...

> > However this works, we have a serious use case problem. "What files have I
> > written, which need to be added?" There is no way to answer that right now.
> 
> +1 on "svn st" showing unversioned files.  I'll even make you a deal:
> you file the issue, and I'll write the code. :-)

Issue #546. P2. Assigned to you. :-)

Cheers,
-g

-- 
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org

Re: unversioned files (was: Re: Rev 362 libmod_dav_sn.so: undefined symbol: svn_repos_get_logs)

Posted by Karl Fogel <kf...@newton.ch.collab.net>.

Greg Stein <gs...@lyra.org> writes:
> > That's not to say "svn st" should or shouldn't show unversioned files;
> > merely mean to show why this one reason to favor showing them isn't a
> > very good reason (as past history with CVS demonstrates).
> 
> *Nothing* today will show unversioned files except for "svn update". That
> seems incredibly lame. I couldn't figure out what files that I needed to add
> to source control. My answer? I happened to know they were all *.i, so I ran
> "svn st *.i". Things that weren't versioned gave me an error. I added one,
> and reran the command again. Added the second...
> 
> Bogus.

Yes, I agree.  To summarize: one reason it would be useful for "svn
st" to show unversioned files would be so that one could use it on
purpose to find out what needs to be added -- habituation wouldn't be
a problem, because the user would already have decided to pay
attention.

I ran into the same situation today, and was wishing I could use st to
list my unversioned files.

> I don't understand your comment about "lots of '?' files". I never have lots
> of ? files in my WC. What's wrong with your WC? And I don't like the
> heuristics answer. That is too "magical".

There's nothing "wrong" with my WC, and I have lots of '?' files in
it.  I suppose your desk is tidier than mine, too. :-)

What is "the heuristics answer"?

> However this works, we have a serious use case problem. "What files have I
> written, which need to be added?" There is no way to answer that right now.

+1 on "svn st" showing unversioned files.  I'll even make you a deal:
you file the issue, and I'll write the code. :-)

-K

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org

unversioned files (was: Re: Rev 362 libmod_dav_sn.so: undefined symbol: svn_repos_get_logs)

Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@lyra.org>.

On Thu, Nov 01, 2001 at 04:54:53PM -0600, Karl Fogel wrote:
> Greg Stein <gs...@lyra.org> writes:
> > Isn't "svn st" supposed to show all unversioned files? That seemd to have
> > been the consensus.
> 
> I thought it was only supposed to show them with -v, and that the idea
> was that plain "svn st" shows you exactly your local mods, not
> including whatever unversioned files may be lying around in your
> working copy.
> 
> Would need to re-read the thread to know for sure.
> 
> However, it wouldn't have helped in this case: when st always shows
> lots of "?" files, then the user will habituate to ignoring those
> lines, and so won't remember to add the file anyway.  This always used
> to happen when people used "cvs up" as their "svn st" equivalent, and
> of course, we forgot to add files all the time. :-) The helpful thing
> would be if "svn st" showed you unversioned files that you *should*
> add, because then you'd always pay attention to "?" lines.  Not saying
> that's easy to implement, of course, heh.
> 
> That's not to say "svn st" should or shouldn't show unversioned files;
> merely mean to show why this one reason to favor showing them isn't a
> very good reason (as past history with CVS demonstrates).

*Nothing* today will show unversioned files except for "svn update". That
seems incredibly lame. I couldn't figure out what files that I needed to add
to source control. My answer? I happened to know they were all *.i, so I ran
"svn st *.i". Things that weren't versioned gave me an error. I added one,
and reran the command again. Added the second...

Bogus.

I don't understand your comment about "lots of '?' files". I never have lots
of ? files in my WC. What's wrong with your WC? And I don't like the
heuristics answer. That is too "magical".

However this works, we have a serious use case problem. "What files have I
written, which need to be added?" There is no way to answer that right now.

Cheers,
-g

-- 
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org