Re: [RFC] Refactoring some merge code - the repos-diff editor
I (Julian Foad) wrote:
> I (Julian Foad) wrote:
> > I'm looking at merge code improvements, with the ultimate aim of
> > functional improvements. My immediate aim is finding ways to
> > restructure parts of the code to make it simpler to understand and
> > easier to work with.
> > Right now I'm looking at rationalizing the way a repos-repos diff is
> > generated. In any merge the data flow starts with
> > libsvn_client/repos_diff.c generating a diff between two repository
> > trees and driving merge.c through the "diff callbacks" mechanism. The
> > same diff editor is also used for "svn diff" in the repos-repos case,
> > but whereas that's the only source of changes for a merge there are
> > other sources for "svn diff".
> > Here's a few things I'm planning to try, ordered from easy to hard:
> > * The merge passes a WC path into the repos-repos diff editor. (Diff
> > doesn't.) Eliminate this, as it is irrelevant to a repos-repos diff.
> > It is only used as a convenience prefix on paths sent to the callbacks,
> > plus in one small place to adjust a notification for part of the new
> > local-move functionality. I'm currently working on this; see email
> > thread "svn commit: r1161219 - Auto-resolve 'local move vs. incoming
> > edit'" <http://svn.haxx.se/dev/archive-2011-08/0586.shtml>.
Done in r1163238 and r1163296.
> > * Eliminate "WC props" and "entry props" from the prop-change diff, if
> > possible. (Diff doesn't want to know about them; I need to check
> > whether merge does.)
> Well, that was naïve. Merge does want to know about entry-prop changes.
> > * Eliminate notification from the repos-repos diff editor. Again,
> > only used by merge, not diff. Notification basically duplicates some
> > information that the diff callbacks are supplying. Bert advises that
> > this would be hard to do but good. One complication I've noticed is
> > that 'absent' dirs/files are currently notified but there's no 'absent'
> > indicator in the diff callbacks mechanism.
> > * Think about all the "skip this item" and "note that this item hit a
> > tree conflict" feedback mechanisms and see if there's a way to make them
> > less specific to merging and hopefully simpler. (It seems wrong for the
> > repos diff code to have parameters that tell it about a "tree conflict"
> > because it should not know anything about such a concept.)
> > I'll see how many of these particular ideas pan out. This is more of a
> > heads-up that I'll be looking for any such opportunities.
> > - Julian
Received on 2011-08-30 19:25:41 CEST
This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev