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

Re: gcc source management requirements

From: Philipp <pixelpapst_at_users.sourceforge.org>
Date: 2002-12-13 22:26:00 CET

On Mon, 09 Dez 2002, Peter Davis wrote:

>Okay, I think I understand. Instead of simply having the commit fail and then
>running "svn update" (or "svn merge") and resolving the conflicts in your
>working copy, you want it to create a special branch so that the commit still
>succeeds, but isn't actually merged into the HEAD tree. That's an
>interesting concept.

looking from the DAV point of view, i just found another alternative
interpretation, which should be roughly compatible with standard
subversion commit semantics:

basically a failed commit is an unfinished transaction, which violates
repository policy (e.g. not the branch's head was used as the base).
Now instead of forcing a transaction rollback now, if we allow the
client to keep the transaction open and do further work on it, we
suddenly do have "microbranches" for free. (User can e.g. apply
HEAD-2:HEAD, with manual merging where necessary, and then try the
commit again.)

Can anybody see where i'm trying to get at and if this would be useful ?


To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Fri Dec 13 22:51:01 2002

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