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

Re: Behaviour of "update" vs. "merge" w.r.t. tree changes (and tree conflicts)

From: Julian Foad <julianfoad_at_btopenworld.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2008 14:44:47 +0100

(This is the "update restores a file" special case.)

Julian Foad wrote:
> C. Michael Pilato wrote:
>> Julian Foad wrote:
>>> /* sussman sez: If we're trying to add a file that's already in
>>> `entries' (but not on disk), that's okay. It's probably because
>>> the user deleted the working version and ran 'svn up' as a means
>>> of getting the file back.
>>> This sounds like something we do only because CVS users got used to
>>> doing it.
>> I would like to convert this case to a tree conflict.

Of course we'll have to keep this CVS-compatible behaviour by default, because
it's now expected by very many Subversion users too. However, in terms of
implementation I might be able to move this special case from its current
hard-coded location in the code to a shared "conflict resolver" function.

(And this "conflict resolver" might later become configurable with a
user-selectable policy telling it what to resolve automatically and what to
flag as a conflict, a bit like our "--accept=mine/theirs/..." flag.)

- Julian

To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help_at_subversion.tigris.org
Received on 2008-04-18 15:45:05 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.