Malcolm Rowe writes:
> So, uh, is the behaviour described in the first para above correct? (and
> so I should mark merge_tests 8 as fixed too), or should we actually be
> testing for a particular behaviour (the current test just checks that
> there's no error coming out of the merge, not that the merge does
> anything in particular).
Sounds like an incomplete test to me;)
>
> I'm leaning towards "this is weird, but probably correct behaviour". I
> can't think of anything more reasonable that we should do, anyway :-)
>
I'd say that the current behaviour is more correct.
Maybe a more convenient behaviour for the user would be for all three conflict
files to be symlinks. letting the user just resolve the conflict by copying
one of them over the working file. But I don't know how hard that'd be.
Running the merge algorithm on those one-liner files with svn:special doesn't
seem right either. What about just declaring a conflict if the contents
differ and do the required detranslations. The working file could
perhaps contain a more instructive message then.
thanks,
//Peter
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Fri Feb 16 11:27:31 2007