Stefan Sperling wrote:
> even though everyone has their heads wrapped around getting 1.5 out
> the door, I'd like to report that Steve and I have gotten the tree
> conflict branch to a milestone: Use cases 1 to 3 are now being handled
> in a usable implementation.
>
> Let me explain what this means in practice. Don't be afraid to read on
> even if you've never heard of tree conflicts before.
>
> I will try to describe what user-visible changes the tree-conflict
> branch implements. Some of the following is copied and slightly adapted
> from notes/tree-conflicts/use-cases.txt. See that file for reference
> and some illustrative ASCII diagrams.
Stefan,
Thank you for this very clear explanation of what you have done.
In these three use cases (file-rename conflicts during an update) you have
successfully detected the conflict, reported it to the user, and made sure that
a commit cannot occur until it has been marked as resolved.
There is more work to do, of course, but do you know of any problems with your
current implementation (other than the reporting of messages which Stefan Küng
commented on) that would make it unsuitable for merging into the trunk?
- Julian
> Feedback on notes/tree-conflicts/detection.txt, which was recently committed
> to trunk, would also be great. If you have the time to read it and have a
> comment, we would like to hear from you.
>
> -------------------
>
> Use case 1:
>
> Developer A modifies Foo.c and commits it to the repository.
[...]
> Developer B has simultaneously moved Foo.c to Bar.c in his working
> copy.
[...]
> B cannot commit because the working copy is out of date,
> so B runs 'svn update'.
[...]
> This is what happens on the tree conflict branch instead (new behaviour):
[...]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help_at_subversion.tigris.org
Received on 2008-01-28 22:19:15 CET