[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: Philip Martin <philip_at_codematters.co.uk>
Date: 2005-09-07 23:39:09 CEST

Erik Huelsmann <ehuels@gmail.com> writes:

>> Is a 'C'onflict correct?
>
> That, or some other alarm (like skipping the target or a 'T'ree
> conflict state [no idea how a target in that state should behave
> though]).

I guess some sort of update feedback should be given.

>> 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 signal
> what can't be automatically resolved, but also to prevent developers
> from stomping over each others' changes. This does exactly that
> (stomp over them). So does the replace-R-with-R in your other mail...

I don't think the "stomping" problem is real. If I schedule 'foo' at
rX for deletion in my working copy, then I update to rX+Y and 'foo'
updates I would be quite happy for it to remain scheduled for deletion
and for my commit to delete the newer 'foo'. The same goes for
schedule 'R'.

-- 
Philip Martin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Wed Sep 7 23:41:04 2005

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