On Tue, 2010-08-24, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 06:40:39PM +0100, Julian Foad wrote:
> > You seem to be talking only about the case where the (locally added)
> > target is the root of the whole merge, and saying that lack of ancestral
> > relationship between the source node and this target node doesn't
> > matter. Maybe the user performing the merge is fully aware of what
> > he/she is doing, which is fine in this simple case. But what about the
> > general case, where the modification to a locally added node may be
> > somewhere deep down in a merge that's supposed to be a simple automatic
> > merge?
>
> I don't think locally added nodes somewhere deep within the merge target
> are affected by this change. Those should be handled by the regular
> tree conflict logic. The change only affects the merge target root,
> which can now be a locally added file or directory. Previously,
> Subversion just errored out on locally added merge target roots
> and didn't merge anything at all.
Oh, OK! That makes sense then.
- Julian
Received on 2010-08-24 10:00:17 CEST