On Wed, 09 Aug 2006, Daniel Rall wrote:
> On Wed, 09 Aug 2006, Garrett Rooney wrote:
> > On 8/8/06, Daniel Rall <email@example.com> wrote:
> > >The callback is getting invoked with an action of
> > >svn_wc_notify_update_add, which has no handling for a conflicts (only
> > >for simple adds):
> > >The handling for conflicts exists in the "case
> > >svn_wc_notify_update_update" block.
> > >
> > >It appears that we're not expecting "svn_wc_notify_update_add" to ever
> > >perform a merge -- and thus threaten to create conflicts -- as we're
> > >seeing here.
> > This is one of those things where you'd think it'd be easy to fix, but
> > it actually causes other problems down the road. If you make it show
> > conflicts on adds, then it breaks dry run merges in some cases...
> > There's an issue about it, but I forget the number.
> Garrett notes that he reported this issue a while back as:
> I'll add a (failing) test case for it based on that shell script
I've committed an XFAIL test for this, and am exploring a bug fix for
the underlying problem (thanks to Garrett for the discussion).
p.s. I'll be on vacation throughout August.
Received on Fri Aug 11 02:20:28 2006
- application/pgp-signature attachment: stored