[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: tree conflicts and directories discussion

From: Nico Schellingerhout <nico.schellingerhout_at_philips.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2008 17:32:44 +0200

Stefan Sperling <stsp_at_elego.de> wrote on 04/04/2008 12:29:36 PM:

> On Fri, Apr 04, 2008 at 11:08:58AM +0200, Nico Schellingerhout wrote:
> > Stefan Sperling <stsp_at_elego.de> wrote on 04/03/2008 06:28:13 PM:
> > > I think your example is a good one, because I hadn't thought of this
> > > scenario yet. But all that comes to my mind about it is that,
> > > when dir1 is deleted, which contains tree conflict victim dir1/b',
> > > and the deletion of dir1 itself causes a tree conflict, we can
> > >
> > > 1) forget about that dir1/b' is a tree conflict victim,
> > > saying that the tree conflict with victim dir1 supersedes it
> > >
> > > or
> > >
> > > 2) don't discard any information but record dir1 as
> > > an additional tree conflict victim
> > I think the second option is better: the user needs to understand that
> > the action that led to the conflict is the delete of dir1, but also
> > should get hints at what he has to do to fix the conflicts. Therefore,
> > a conflict on the modified files/dirs should be raised as well.
> >
> > Let me see if I can sketch an example, to start off the discussion:
> >
> > Start on source:
> > dir1/
> > dir1/a
> > dir1/b
> > dir1/dir2/
> > dir1/dir2/c
> >
> > Revision to merge:
> > D dir1
> >
> > Start on target:
> > dir1/
> > dir1/a
> > dir1/b'
> > dir1/dir2/
> > dir1/dir2/c
> > dir1/dir2/d
> >
> > I would like to see the merge to have something like the following
> > C dir1/ [could not be deleted because of local modifications in b'and
> With "local modifications", you mean both modifications local to the
> working copy, and modifications made in the history of the branch the
> working copy is based on, which are not present in the source branch
> of the merge. Right?


> In which case, "dir1 could not be deleted because of local modifications
> in b' and dir2" is the same as "dir1 could not be deleted because there
> are tree conflicts in the tree rooted at dir1". If we could use such a
> recursive definition, the implementation should not be too hard, and
> an extra crawl would not be required, since we already have information
> about tree conflicts inside a directory in the close_dir() callback
> during merge anyway.


> Also, I think the output should be:
> C . [dir1 could not be deleted because of local modifications in
> b' and dir2]
> D dir1/

You're right.

> since the conflict is marked at the parent directory of dir1,
> which is the working copy root in this case.
> Keep in mind that we never delete files that are tree conflict
> victims from disk (at least since r30144), see
> http://subversion.tigris.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3149
> We just mark them for deletion.


> So we could define the same behaviour for directories, which would
> be consistent with both the behaviour for files, and your example.
> If we did that, dir1 (and all its children) would be marked for
> deletion, but dir1 and its children would not be removed from disk.
> But I'm not sure yet what happens if we try to mark a tree conflicted
> item for deletion. Will the delete bail out?

That's what I was wondering about as well.

> I think we'd need to do this though -- the current code will
> unconditionally mark the whole tree rooted at a directory deleted
> during merge for deletion. I don't really want to change that code
> unless we absolutely have to. We have changed a lot of code already.
> Merging the tree-conflicts branch into trunk will get increasingly
> complex if we touch even more code. So if at all possible, let's try
> to find a way of dealing with directories that makes as little
> changes to the current way of doing things as possible.

I think marking for deletion of non-conflicting files/dirs is ok, but
let's make sure that it is consistent: either everything (that is not
conflicting) is marked for deletion, or everything is left in place.

> > dir1/a
> > dir1/b'
> > C dir1/dir2/ [could not be deleted because file d is not in the source
> > branch]
> In this case, "could not be deleted because file d is not in the source
> branch" is the same as: "could not be deleted because there is a tree
> conflict in the tree rooted at dir2". Is it? If so, the recursive


> definition I proposed above would also work here.

- Nico
Received on 2008-04-04 17:31:42 CEST

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

This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.