Stefan Sperling wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 11:47:42AM +0100, Stefan Sperling wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 11:23:55PM +0200, Neels J Hofmeyr wrote:
>>> Hi guys,
>>> I'd like to renew an old question, since I can't find any final conclusion
>>> to it: merge, --force and tree-conflicts detection. ... "?"
>>> Are we still positive that skipping tree-conflicts detection during merge
>>> with --force is no good?
>>> And, that a way to skip TC detection during merge is yet a missing feature?
>>> (does anyone remember an issue for this? couldn't find any.)
>>> I've also got this snippet from notes/tree-conflicts/detection.txt:
>>> SKIPPING DETECTION
>> I think the paragraph below was written before we started to
>> always skip tree-conflict victims, and before we updated
>> text-bases of tree conflict victims to the revision being
>> updated to, so that 'revert' yields the item at the new revision.
>> Since we're skipping tree-conflict victims automatically now,
>> you can run the merge twice, and the second merge will skip
>> the victim, just as if the user had passed --force.
>> Since that seems to cover all concerns voiced in the paragraph
>> below, I'd say the paragraph is outdated and should be deleted
>> from the notes, or replaced with a description of the current
> Whoops, reverse, reverse!
> I just checked, and it is actually true that tree conflicts do not
> get flagged during a merge if --force is passed.
> Apologies for any confusion I might have caused!
The confusion is not over yet:
If I'm not mistaken, then merge omits *some* of the tree-conflicts kinds
during merge when it has --force, while others are unaffected.
We should write a lot of tests. ;)
>>> During an update or switch, we skip tree conflict detection if the
>>> user has provided the '--force' option. This allows an interrupted
>>> update to continue (see the use case 1 example below). This is in
>>> addition to the already-existing behavior: with '--force', update or
>>> switch will tolerate an obstruction of the same type as the item added
>>> at that path by the operation.
>>> During a merge, we skip tree conflict detection if the record_only
>>> field of the merge-command baton is TRUE. A record-only merge
>>> operation updates mergeinfo without touching files.
>>> Thanks for any comments.
Received on 2009-06-19 18:16:07 CEST