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

Re: Update problem: Tree conflicts vs content conflicts

From: Erik Huelsmann <ehuels_at_gmail.com>
Date: 2005-09-07 23:22:58 CEST

> There is a similar problem if 'a' is not replaced but simply schedule> 'D': update causes the working file to get restored, although the> schedule 'D' remains.> > There is yet another problem is 'a' is schedule 'R' and the update> deletes rather than modifies: update causes the schedule 'R' file to> become unversioned.> > Is a 'C'onflict correct?
That, or some other alarm (like skipping the target or a 'T'reeconflict state [no idea how a target in that state should behavethough]).
> An alternative would be that the text-base> of the deleted file gets updated but that the scheduling and the> working file should not be touched.
But - to quote Ben Collins-Sussman - conflicts are not only to signalwhat can't be automatically resolved, but also to prevent developersfrom stomping over each others' changes. This does exactly that(stomp over them). So does the replace-R-with-R in your other mail...
> If the update deletes the file,> then the schedule replace could become a schedule add, if the update> replaces the file then a 'C'onflict is probably necessary.
Ah. now, that *would* be beautifull and along the lines ofautomatically merging a locally added file with one added by Updateiff their contents are equal.

Received on Wed Sep 7 23:23:42 2005

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.