RE: resolve conflict dialog is confusing

> On 19.10.2011 20:41, spongman wrote:
> > On Oct 19, 11:13 am, Stefan Küng<tortoise..._at_gmail.com> wrote:
> >> ... it has nothing to do with the merge.
> >
> > really? surely the existence of the target working copy depends on
> > this association. you cannot have a working copy without it, right? As
> > far as I know (and I defer to you as the expert here) the link to/
> > association with the repository is part of what defines what a working
> > copy is. From the point of view of the user you're merging one branch
> > into another, both are associated with the repository and therefore
> > the term 'repository' could refer to either one.
>
> Yes, a working copy is associated with a repository. And a working copy is the
> target of a merge operation. But again (and hopefully for the last time): the
> associated repository of the target working copy has nothing to do with the
> merge.
> I repeat: the associated repository of the target working copy has nothing to
> do with the merge.

Yes and no. It depends on the merge you preform. If you do merge a range... the repository path associated to the current working copy is used as the SOURE2 of the merge. If you use the command line and do:

svn merge ^/MyProject/branches/MyFeature

There are two things implied.

1. The target to which the merge diff is applied... which is the pwd, your working copy
2. The source2 of the merge... this is inferred as the svn path or URL that the checkout points to.

You see in this in the command line help:

svn merge SOURCE1[@N] SOURCE2[@M] [TARGET_WCPATH]

So, when you don't specify SOURCE2 then the associated repository of the URL is what is used as SOURCE2.

I assume you mean to say, a merge doesn't ALWAYS use the URL of the associated repository path of the target working copy.

Assume an TSVN two tree merge... neither the From or To (not really accurate since the word TO implies target, but doesn't mean that here at all) where neither are in any way releated to the current working copy. The current working copy is nothing more than the target of the diff between SOURCE1 and SOURCE2. In that case neither SOURCE1 or SOURCE2 is really "Local"... they are both actually infact repository. Neither can one of the other be considered MINE or THEIRS.

If during an UPDATE there is a conflict then Local / Repository works perfectly fine. But not always true for a merge UNLESS the working copy is SOURCE2.

BOb

>
> Also, if we refer to a repository, we would mention 'repository' and not
> 'working copy'. But we always mention 'working copy'. So why do you insist
> that a working copy and its repository are ambiguous?
> In TSVN (and the SVN docs and CL client as well), there is not one mention of
> 'working copy' where a repository is meant or vice versa.
>
> Stefan
>
> --
> ___
> oo // \\ "De Chelonian Mobile"
> (_,\/ \_/ \ TortoiseSVN
> \ \_/_\_/> The coolest Interface to (Sub)Version Control
> /_/ \_\ http://tortoisesvn.net
>
> ------------------------------------------------------
> http://tortoisesvn.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=4061&dsMess
> ageId=2858906
>
> To unsubscribe from this discussion, e-mail: [users-
> unsubscribe_at_tortoisesvn.tigris.org].

------------------------------------------------------
http://tortoisesvn.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=4061&dsMessageId=2859736

To unsubscribe from this discussion, e-mail: [users-unsubscribe_at_tortoisesvn.tigris.org].
Received on 2011-10-21 00:36:47 CEST