Re: redundant "conflicts"

Marcus Comstedt <marcus@mc.pp.se> writes:

> 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. :-)

Yeah, this bug has been brought up before. I don't see an issue
either; do you mind filing one?

The problem here is that if GNU 'patch' discovers that a hunk is
already present in the target, it still considers it a 'failed hunk'
and creates a .rej file anyway. Not sure what we can do about that.

(In the meantime, you can just 'svn revert' the file and the .rej will
vanish.)

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sat Oct 21 14:36:58 2006