Re: redundant "conflicts"

On Wed, Jan 23, 2002 at 11:16:43PM +0100, Marcus Comstedt wrote:
>
> Hm, I've been noticing a rather annoying thing about the update
> functionality:
>
> If my working copy is being updated to a new revision, and that
> revision contains changes that are already present in my working copy
> (as would be the case if I had sent in a patch, for example :), then
> this is detected as a conflict, with the .rej file containing a no-op
> transformation. cvs is not that stupid, so neither should svn be.
> This would probably not be a very high-priority concern, but I didn't
> see anything about it in the issue database, so I wanted to make sure
> it wasn't overlooked completely. :-)

i believe this is a known issue.

see issue #563.

http://subversion.tigris.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=563

-garrett

-- 
garrett rooney                     Unix was not designed to stop you from 
rooneg@electricjellyfish.net       doing stupid things, because that would  
http://electricjellyfish.net/      stop you from doing clever things.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org