Rather than outright hiding that the file changed why not implement what svk
does, and show a lower case 'g' for files that had local changes, but where
unmodified by the merge since they already contained the changes being
merged into them?
Michael
On 4/4/07, Kamesh Jayachandran <kamesh@collab.net> wrote:
>
> Paul Burba wrote:
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Kamesh Jayachandran
> >> Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2007 8:29 AM
> >> To: Mark Phippard
> >> Cc: Paul Burba; Subversion Development; Daniel Rall; Peter N.
> >> Lundblad; philip@codematters.co.uk
> >> Subject: Re: [PATCH]: Stop mer'G'e notification for files
> >> with local mods that are unchanged by merge
> >>
> >> Mark Phippard wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 4/4/07, *Paul Burba* <pburba@collab.net
> >>>
> >> <mailto:pburba@collab.net>>
> >>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> When merging into a file with preexisting local
> >>>
> >> modifications, our
> >>
> >>> code
> >>> in merge.c:merge_file_changed() always reports a
> >>>
> >> mer'G'e has occurred,
> >>
> >>> even if the merge made no change to the file (i.e.
> >>>
> >> svn_wc_merge2()
> >>
> >>> returns a merge outcome of svn_wc_merge_unchanged).
> >>>
> >>> This results in a lot of incorrect notifications with
> >>>
> >> merge-tracking -
> >>
> >>> see http://svn.haxx.se/dev/archive-2007-03/1157.shtml
> >>> <http://svn.haxx.se/dev/archive-2007-03/1157.shtml>
> >>>
> >> But I'd argue
> >>
> >>> it's incorrect regardless of merge-tracking and would like to
> >>> apply the
> >>> attached patch. I see no problems with this, but
> >>>
> >> Philip Martin's
> >>
> >>> question in merge_file_changed()...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> In your example (in the mailing list archive link), the file is not
> >>> updated by the merge, but the file's properties are.
> >>>
> >> Shouldn't there
> >>
> >>> be a notification due to the properties being updated? Or are we
> >>> trying to suppress those when it is the mergeinfo property?
> >>>
> >>> With the possible exception that we are trying to hide the
> >>>
> >> updates to
> >>
> >>> mergeinfo properties, I'd have excpected to see a property update
> >>> notification.
> >>>
> >> For property merge we still get 'G' even if the WC already as
> >> the same local change.
> >>
> >
> > I might be misunderstanding Mark, but I think he is referring only to
> > svn:mergeinfo?
> >
> > If so this is somewhat of a separate issue. Currently we do treat the
> > svn:mergeinfo prop as special and don't notify regarding changes to it
> > (hmmm, not sure if this always true but I think it is ATM). I'm not
> > sure if this was by design, I see nothing in the specs that indicates it
> > was, perhaps Dan or Kamesh can speak to this? Regardless I think the
> > current behavior is correct, svn:mergeinfo changes show up in status
> > (they are after all properties), but I wouldn't want to see them in the
> > output of svn merge since I see them more as meta-(meta?)-data on the
> > merge rather than part of it.
> >
>
> Yes since r19954(erstwhile merge-tracking branch) this suppression seems
> to be in place. Though I could not see the log message stating the same.
>
> With regards
> Kamesh Jayachandran
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
>
>
Received on Wed Apr 4 17:19:45 2007