[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: tree conflicts conflict with part of the fix for issue #1425

From: Julian Foad <julianfoad_at_btopenworld.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 14:35:39 +0000

Issue #1425 summary is "make 'svn merge' less fragile", and initial description is:
[[[
We have a general problem that 'svn merge' dies too easily. This
command should behave much like 'patch' -- that is, if a hunk of tree
delta fails to apply, just warn the user, and move on.
]]]

That was in 2003. Clearly we have moved on and now expect "merge" to be more
robust and ensure all requested changes have been either merged in or flagged
as conflicts.

Stefan Sperling wrote:
> I'm in the process of going over failing tests on the tree-conflicts
> branch and trying to fix them.
>
> This one is causing trouble:
>
> # Issue #1425: 'svn merge' should skip over any unversioned obstruction
>
> def merge_skips_obstructions(sbox):
> "merge should skip over unversioned obstructions"
>
> It causes a tree conflict and currently fails with:
[...]
> Unequal Types: one Node is a file, the other is a directory
>
> In the related issue, Ben Collins-Sussman said:
>
> * deal with unversioned obstructions: what if merge wants to
> add/delete/change something that is unversioned? Just keep going,
> print 'skipped unversioned target', rather than bombing out as it
> currently does.
>
> Quote from the "USE CASE 4" section in notes/tree-conflicts/detection.txt:
>
> If 'svn merge' tries to modify a file that does not exist in the
> target working copy, then the target file is a tree conflict victim.
>
> So by this logic, the file obstructing the add in the merge is
> becoming a tree conflict victim.
>
> Is it OK if we change the behaviour introduced by the fix for
> issue #1425 accordingly, i.e. flagging a tree conflict instead
> of printing "skipped unversioned target"?

Yes, please do.

- Julian

>
> Or should we make Subversion treat unversioned items specifically
> not as tree conflict victims for some reason?
>
> In the former case, the test could be renamed to "unversioned obstructions
> during merge should cause tree conflicts" and be adjusted accordingly.
>
> Ben, what is your opinion?

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help_at_subversion.tigris.org
Received on 2008-03-25 15:35:55 CET

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.