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

Re: Conflict storage in 1.7

From: Stefan Sperling <stsp_at_elego.de>
Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2010 13:26:08 +0100

On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 10:30:07AM +0000, Philip Martin wrote:
> Stefan Sperling <stsp_at_elego.de> writes:
>
> > In 1.7, you get a tree conflict if a directory obstructs an addition
> > of another directory during update:
> > $ svn up
> > Updating '.' ...
> > C foo
> > At revision 3.
> > Summary of conflicts:
> > Tree conflicts: 1
> > $ svn st
> > ? C foo
> > > local unversioned, incoming add upon update
> > Summary of conflicts:
> > Tree conflicts: 1
> >
> > IIRC we once decided that obstructions should not cause tree conflicts.
> > Only versioned item should cause tree conflicts, and obstructions should
> > be skipped. Apparently, this decision has not been enforced consistently
> > throughout the code since we still have an "unversioned" tree conflict reason.
> >
> > 1.6 behaved as follows:
> > $ svn up
> > subversion/libsvn_wc/update_editor.c:2335: (apr_err=155000)
> > svn: Failed to add directory 'foo': an unversioned directory of the same name already exists
> >
> > I like the current 1.7 behaviour better than the 1.6 behaviour because the
> > update isn't instantly aborted when an obstructing directory is found.
> > But maybe 1.7 should skip adding the directory instead of flagging a
> > conflict?
>
> What do you mean by skipping the add? Not adding the base node?

Whatever 1.6 did when it skipped something.

But you're right saying there's much less reason to skip things in
1.7 because meta data can always be updated.
Also, a conflict is more likely to catch the user's attention than
a skipped message.

Stefan
Received on 2010-12-12 13:26:58 CET

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