     Oh Most High and Fragrant Emacs, please be in -*- text -*- mode!

##############################################################################
### The vast majority of this file is completely out-of-date as a result   ###
### of the ongoing work known as WC-NG.  Please consult that documentation ###
### for a more relevant and complete reference.                            ###
### (See the files in notes/wc-ng )                                        ###
##############################################################################


This is the library described in the section "The working copy
management library" of svn-design.texi.  It performs local operations
in the working copy, tweaking administrative files and versioned data.
It does not communicate directly with a repository; instead, other
libraries that do talk to the repository call into this library to
make queries and changes in the working copy.

Note: This document attempts to describe (insofar as development is still
a moving target) the current working copy layout.  For historic layouts,
consulting the versioned history of this file (yay version control!)


The Problem We're Solving
-------------------------

The working copy is arranged as a directory tree, which, at checkout,
mirrors a tree rooted at some node in the repository.  Over time, the
working copy accumulates uncommitted changes, some of which may affect
its tree layout.  By commit time, the working copy's layout could be
arbitrarily different from the repository tree on which it was based.

Furthermore, updates/commits do not always involve the entire tree, so
it is possible for the working copy to go a very long time without
being a perfect mirror of some tree in the repository.


One Way We're Not Solving It
----------------------------

Updates and commits are about merging two trees that share a common
ancestor, but have diverged since that ancestor.  In real life, one of
the trees comes from the working copy, the other from the repository.
But when thinking about how to merge two such trees, we can ignore the
question of which is the working copy and which is the repository,
because the principles involved are symmetrical.

Why do we say symmetrical?

It's tempting to think of a change as being either "from" the working
copy or "in" the repository.  But the true source of a change is some
committer -- each change represents some developer's intention toward
a file or a tree, and a conflict is what happens when two intentions
are incompatible (or their compatibility cannot be automatically
determined).

It doesn't matter in what order the intentions were discovered --
which has already made it into the repository versus which exists only
in someone's working copy.  Incompatibility is incompatibility,
independent of timing.

In fact, a working copy can be viewed as a "branch" off the
repository, and the changes committed in the repository *since* then
represent another, divergent branch.  Thus, every update or commit is
a general branch-merge problem:

   - An update is an attempt to merge the repository's branch into the
     working copy's branch, and the attempt may fail wholly or
     partially depending on the number of conflicts.

   - A commit is an attempt to merge the working copy's branch into
     the repository.  The exact same algorithm is used as with
     updates, the only difference being that a commit must succeed
     completely or not at all.  That last condition is merely a
     usability decision: the repository tree is shared by many
     people, so folding both sides of a conflict into it to aid
     resolution would actually make it less usable, not more.  On the
     other hand, representing both sides of a conflict in a working
     copy is often helpful to the person who owns that copy.

So below we consider the general problem of how to merge two trees
that have a common ancestor.  The concrete tree layout discussed will
be that of the working copy, because this library needs to know
exactly how to massage a working copy from one state to another.


Structure of the Working Copy
-----------------------------

Working copy meta-information is stored in a single .svn/ subdirectory, in
the root of a given working copy.  For the purposes of storage, directories
pull in through the use of svn:externals are considered separate working
copies.

  .svn/wc.db                    /* SQLite database containing node metadata. */
       pristine/                /* Sharded directory containing base files. */
       tmp/                     /* Local tmp area. */
       experimental/            /* Data for experimental features. */
       entries                  /* Stub file. */
       format                   /* Stub file. */

`wc.db':
   A self-contained SQLite database containing all the metadata Subversion
   needs to track for this working copy.  The schema is described by
   libsvn_wc/wc-metadata.sql.

`pristine':
   Each file in the working copy has a corresponding unmodified version in
   the .svn/pristine subdirectory.  This files are stored by the SHA-1
   hash of their contents, sharded into 256 subdirectories based upon the
   first two characters of the hex expansion of the hash.  In this way,
   multiple identical files can share the same pristine representation.

   Pristines are used for sending diffs back to the server, etc.

`experimental':
   Experimental (unstable) features store their data here.

`entries', `format':
   These stub files exist only to enable a pre-1.7 client to yield a clearer
   error message.


How the client applies an update delta
--------------------------------------

Updating is more than just bringing changes down from the repository;
it's also folding those changes into the working copy.  Getting the
right changes is the easy part -- folding them in is hard.

Before we examine how Subversion handles this, let's look at what CVS
does:

   1. Unmodified portions of the working copy are simply brought
      up-to-date.  The server sends a forward diff, the client applies
      it.

   2. Locally modified portions are "merged", where possible.  That
      is, the changes from the repository are incorporated into the
      local changes in an intelligent way (if the diff application
      succeeds, then no conflict, else go to 3...)

   3. Where merging is not possible, a conflict is flagged, and *both*
      sides of the conflict are folded into the local file in such a
      way that it's easy for the developer to figure out what
      happened.  (And the old locally-modified file is saved under a
      temp name, just in case.)

It would be nice for Subversion to do things this way too;
unfortunately, that's not possible in every case.

CVS has a wonderfully simplifying limitation: it doesn't version
directories, so never has tree-structure conflicts.  Given that only
textual conflicts are possible, there is usually a natural way to
express both sides of a conflict -- just include the opposing texts
inside the file, delimited with conflict markers.  (Or for binary
files, make both revisions available under temporary names.)

While Subversion can behave the same way for textual conflicts, the
situation is more complex for trees.  There is sometimes no way for a
working copy to reflect both sides of a tree conflict without being
more confusing than helpful.  How does one put "conflict markers" into
a directory, especially when what was a directory might now be a file,
or vice-versa?

Therefore, while Subversion does everything it can to fold conflicts
intelligently (doing at least as well as CVS does), in extreme cases
it is acceptable for the Subversion client to punt, saying in effect
"Your working copy is too out of whack; please move it aside, check
out a fresh one, redo your changes in the fresh copy, and commit from
that."  (This response may also apply to subtrees of the working copy,
of course).

Usually it offers more detail than that, too.  In addition to the
overall out-of-whackness message, it can say "Directory foo was
renamed to bar, conflicting with your new file bar; file blah was
deleted, conflicting with your local change to file blah, ..." and so
on.  The important thing is that these are informational only -- they
tell the user what's wrong, but they don't try to fix it
automatically.

All this is purely a matter of *client-side* intelligence.  Nothing in
the repository logic or protocol affects the client's ability to fold
conflicts.  So as we get smarter, and/or as there is demand for more
informative conflicting updates, the client's behavior can improve and
punting can become a rare event.  We should start out with a _simple_
conflict-folding algorithm initially, though.


Text and Property Components
----------------------------

A Subversion working copy keeps track of *two* forks per file, much
like the way MacOS files have "data" forks and "resource" forks.  Each
file under revision control has its "text" and "properties" tracked
with different timestamps and different conflict (reject) files.  In
this vein, each file's status-line has two columns which describe the
file's state.

Examples:

  --  glub.c      --> glub.c is completely up-to-date.
  U-  foo.c       --> foo.c's textual component was updated.
  -M  bar.c       --> bar.c's properties have been locally modified
  UC  baz.c       --> baz.c has had both components patched, but a
                      local property change is creating a conflict.
