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

Re: Tree conflicts when merging deleted directories or files

From: Bernhard Brunner <brn_at_brudesy.de>
Date: Fri, 08 May 2009 15:43:13 +0200

>> From my point of view, it would be acceptable, if I got a tree conflict
>> once, but then never again, since that conflict has been as resolved
>> (after all the directory was removed just once). After all, one of the
>> reasons to remove the directory (and some files) was that I don't want
>> to merge stuff that is not needed within the branch anyway.
>>
>
> The client does not remember tree conflicts that have been marked
> resolved. It just forgets about them. That's why you get this
> problem over and over again.
>
I see...
While I could personally live with that behavior, even if it is
annoying, the really bad thing is that it breaks our existing scripts
and basically prevents me from upgrading to SVN 1.6 on any machine that
has to run such a script.
>
>> Does anyone know a way to handle this situation more elegantly?
>>
>
> Currently, we default to the safest way of doing things, and require
> users to manually override this.
>
> The best solution would be to implement a configurable policy that
> specifies how to deal with tree conflicts of a certain nature,
> optionally scoped to a given file or directory.
> This would also help automated merging.
>
> This idea has been discussed before as a possible improvement to
> tree conflict handling, but no one has stepped up to do it yet.
> You are certainly welcome to contribute :)
>
Sounds promising, but also seems to require quite some effort. Might
even be interesting. If I hadn't already enough work to do ;)

Wouldn't it be rather simple to suppress or automatically resolve tree
conflicts for ignored files/directories?
Granted, this only works, if you never merge back from branch to trunk,
but that's exactly the situation which we are facing.
At least that seems quite intuitive to me. Implementation might be a
different thing of course. Just an idea.

Sometimes it would be rather helpful anyway to exclude certain items
from a merge. I think this could be controlled in a similar way.

Bernhard

------------------------------------------------------
http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=1065&dsMessageId=2113734

To unsubscribe from this discussion, e-mail: [users-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org].
Received on 2009-05-08 15:45:16 CEST

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