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

Re: [PROPOSAL] Merging Improved

From: Tom Lord <lord_at_emf.net>
Date: 2003-04-12 20:17:32 CEST

Rereading this thread, I note three design issues, and one big

1) (The big mistake) I said "node" where I should have said "node
   revision". Oops.

2) I don't think I've seen any solution here to the "transitive merge"
   problem, though perhaps I missed it.

3) The question of tree deltas was dismissed with:

> For sake of simplicity I'm leaving the handling of tree deltas
> out of this proposal. This being resemblant to textual
> merging to a degree.

   but I'm not convinced. I've mentioned some issues that come up in
   that regard earlier, but here's another: Let's suppose that that
   the changes on the merged-from branch rename a file. What does
   this correspond to in the merged-to revision? In other words, how
   does one identify which corresponding file is to be renamed? Note
   that, in the merged-to revision, the renamed file may have a
   different name and may have either a longer or shorter node id --
   or even an unrelated node id. Worse, moreover, there may be
   logically _different_ files in the merged-to revision that have the
   same path, or a node id that is a "better match" than that of the
   correct file for the node id in the changes. In other words,
   neither node id or path is a good indicator for file identity for
   the purpose of renames and other elements of tree deltas.

4) No consideration seems to have been given to auditing merges at the
   project level.


To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sat Apr 12 20:08:03 2003

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

This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.