On Sat, 2005-04-23 at 13:20, Philip Martin wrote:
> What I would suggest is that if merge causes a locally modified file
> to get copied, i.e. the merge adds a file with a copyfrom history that
> can be interpreted as a locally modified file, then that local
> modification could get applied to the newly added file. That's a one
> off, subsequent merges won't add the file again as it already exists,
> so no further copying of local modifications would occur.
This, all by itself, seems very unpredictable in the case of non-rename
copies.
If I have a locally-modified file "foo" and I receive an update which
adds "newfoo" copied from foo, I propagate the local mods, and now have
them in two places. But if I check in my local mods before the update
(no conflict), then the modifications are never propagated to newfoo.
If foo and newfoo are in different directories, I might also get
different behavior under your proposal depending on whether I update
from a parent directory which encompasses both foo and newfoo, or from
the directory which only contains newfoo.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sat Apr 23 20:56:47 2005