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

Re: svn commit: r1127134 - in /subversion/trunk/subversion: libsvn_client/add.c libsvn_wc/adm_ops.c tests/cmdline/tree_conflict_tests.py

From: Stefan Sperling <stsp_at_apache.org>
Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2011 09:01:04 +0200

On Tue, Sep 06, 2011 at 06:04:32PM -0400, Paul Burba wrote:
> On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 12:35 PM, <stsp_at_apache.org> wrote:
> > Author: stsp
> > Date: Tue May 24 16:35:14 2011
> > New Revision: 1127134
> >
> > URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1127134&view=rev
> > Log:
> > As part of issue #3779, "actual-only nodes need regression tests",
> > make 'svn add' detect tree conflict victims that do not exist on disk
> > and prevent adding new nodes at that path with a meaningful error message.
> >

> Hi Stefan,
>
> While reviewing some outstanding merge-related issues I noticed that
> this change breaks the use-case of incoming replacements on local
> deletes. The delete portion of the replacement is handled and a
> tree-conflict set by the time the add is done and the above error is
> raised.

Hmmm, this a problem.
I remember fixing all sorts of merge replacement issues in 1.6.x.
So this might even be a regression from 1.6.x :(

> Not exactly sure how to fix this...I can look at it further tomorrow,
> just wanted to get your thoughts if you have time.

Does reverting the changes made to libsvn_wc/adm_ops.c fix the problem?

I was aiming at changing the behaviour of 'add' and 'mkdir', not 'merge'.
Both 'add' and 'mkdir' should be covered by the change to libsvn_client/add.c.

I probably just added the check to adm_ops.c as well in case some API callers
bypass svn_client_add(). But I did not consider the implications for 'merge'.
Received on 2011-09-07 09:01:57 CEST

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