Stefan Sperling wrote:
> Hello Steve, Julian, Nico, and others interested,
>
> One of the failing tests on the tree-conflicts branch shows that
> we have a gap in the design.
>
> Namely, we have not yet defined how svn should behave if a file
> is obstructed by an unversioned item of the same name during
> update/switch and merge.
>
> See http://subversion.tigris.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3139
>
> Currently, during update and switch obstructions cause the operation
> to fail:
> svn: Failed to add file 'b': object of the same name already exists
>
> I think this behaviour suits us fairly well already.
I think that behaviour satisfies the goal of the current tree-conflicts work
(to ensure conflicts are noticed), but it would be more useful and more
consistent if it would now raise a tree conflict and carry on rather than
bailing out with an error.
> But obstructed files are currently silently skipped during merge!
Oops, that's bad! Definitely we should flag them as a tree conflict.
> I suppose we should flag obstructed files as tree conflict
> victims during merge, except when their name appears in the
> svn:ignore property on the containing directory.
And what would you suggest we do if they're "ignored"? I would suggest we still
flag this as a tree conflict.
> Opinions?
>
> Julian has already expressed implicit consent in
> http://subversion.tigris.org/servlets/ReadMsg?list=dev&&msgNo=136402 ,
> but I want to make sure everyone agrees with us here.
>
> We should update detection.txt accordingly, and possibly also
> use-cases.txt.
Yes. Some extra use cases for these cases would be good.
- Julian
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help_at_subversion.tigris.org
Received on 2008-03-27 23:26:08 CET