Modify gclient to only delete unversioned trees during an update if...

Modify gclient to only delete unversioned trees during an update if
the --delete_unversioned flag is specified.  This only affects the update
command.  Reverts will still delete the unversioned tree.


Committed: http://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome?view=rev&revision=19021

[awong, 2009-06-15 20:59:02]

Simple fix to the deleting of unversioned trees issue.

This supplants http://codereview.chromium.org/119268.

2 gotcha with this patch:

 1) Reverts still delete unversioned trees (easy fix if we want to change that
behavior)
 2) Submitting this probably requires a change to the build bots to specify this
flag, otherwise we'll end up with dirty checkouts on those machines.

-Albert

[awong, 2009-06-15 21:05:06]

On 2009/06/15 20:59:02, awong wrote:
> Simple fix to the deleting of unversioned trees issue.
> 
> This supplants http://codereview.chromium.org/119268.
> 
> 2 gotcha with this patch:
> 
>  1) Reverts still delete unversioned trees (easy fix if we want to change that
> behavior)
>  2) Submitting this probably requires a change to the build bots to specify
this
> flag, otherwise we'll end up with dirty checkouts on those machines.
> 
> -Albert

Oh, and oddly enough, though this avoids the deletion of my directory trees, it
doesn't print the warning message.  Not sure what's up with that (is there some
filtering going on by default)?

[M-A Ruel, 2009-06-17 13:02:32]

On 2009/06/15 21:05:06, awong wrote:
> Oh, and oddly enough, though this avoids the deletion of my directory trees,
it
> doesn't print the warning message.  Not sure what's up with that (is there
some
> filtering going on by default)?

Don't know about the warning message, maybe a unit test for that? :)
Sorry for the latency. lgtm

[awong, 2009-06-19 18:45:16]

On 2009/06/17 13:02:32, Marc-Antoine Ruel wrote:
> On 2009/06/15 21:05:06, awong wrote:
> > Oh, and oddly enough, though this avoids the deletion of my directory trees,
> it
> > doesn't print the warning message.  Not sure what's up with that (is there
> some
> > filtering going on by default)?
> 
> Don't know about the warning message, maybe a unit test for that? :)
> Sorry for the latency. lgtm

My turn for high latency. :)

I've never checked into depot tools before.  Do I just svn commit it?  Also,
will this change automatically propogate to the buildbots?  If it does, I think
there'll need to be a semi-synchonous change in the build bot scripts to call
this flag.

[M-A Ruel, 2009-06-20 00:30:07]

Actually it's not a big deal but I agree we should change the buildbot. I can do
that next week.