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

Re: Do we better tolerate obstructed updates?

From: Hyrum K. Wright <hyrum_wright_at_mail.utexas.edu>
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2010 15:07:30 +0100

On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 2:57 PM, Stefan Sperling <stsp_at_elego.de> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 02:48:52PM +0100, Hyrum K. Wright wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 8:35 AM, Bert Huijben <bert_at_qqmail.nl> wrote:
>> > I think it should check that a proper obstruction is notified and maybe that
>> > a future update brings in the new data.
>>
>> Is this in the intended future behavior, or the current behavior?  In
>> modifying the JavaHL test which is having this problem, I don't see
>> obstructed_update notified, only a tree conflict.
>
> I think Neels changed the behaviour to flagging a tree conflict in r959735.
> I am not sure if that is what we want. AFAIK we had decided long ago to not
> treat obstructions as conflicts. But maybe we don't all agree on that?
>
> I'd say mark the text XFail for now, and file an issue with milestone
> 1.7.0 prompting ourselves to make up our minds about this.

Could you file the issue? I'm not very current on the issues (as you
seem to be); I'm just trying to avoid spurious test failures. I'll
have happy to mark the tests XFail and reference them in the issue,
though.

-Hyrum
Received on 2010-07-13 16:09:00 CEST

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