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

Re: bug in add/add tree conflict?

From: Stefan Sperling <stsp_at_elego.de>
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 19:31:16 +0100

On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 08:05:20PM +0200, Greg Stein wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 19:41, Stefan Sperling <stsp_at_elego.de> wrote:
> > The incoming item is already versioned. It is safe, it can
> > be recovered from history.
> >
> > The locally added item has not reached the repository yet,
> > it is not "safe" yet in the sense that a backup of it
> > could be retrieved from the repo at any time.
>
> Not entirely true. It may have local mods after the copy occurred.

I don't understand what you mean.

What is "it" in your sentence?

> Let's say I did the following:
>
> $ svn cp file1 file2
> $ edit file2
> $ svn up
> > incoming add conflicts with my add
> $ svn resolve --accept=working
>
> The result (I believe) should be the same as if I did the following:
>
> $ svn up
> $ svn rm file2
> $ svn cp file1_at_SOMEREV file2
> $ edit file2
>
> IOW, file2 is now schedule-replace and I can revert to what came down
> in the update.

Yeah.

> "svn update" can virtually populate the entire BASE tree and drop
> pristine files into its filestore. It only gets tricky when you start
> comparing the BASE changes against what is in WORKING and ACTUAL.
> That's where the tree conflicts will come in. But if you have a
> local-copy sitting in WORKING, and then revert that... yes, we can
> restore the entire directory structure from the recorded BASE and the
> files stored in the filestore. No problem at all!!
>
> :-) :-)

Great!

Stefan
Received on 2009-04-22 20:31:58 CEST

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

This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.