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

Re: [PATCH] Fix merging with broken softlink as target

From: Erik Huelsmann <ehuels_at_gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 8 May 2008 21:47:19 +0200

On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 9:03 PM, Karl Fogel <kfogel_at_red-bean.com> wrote:
> "David O'Shea" <david.oshea_at_s3group.com> writes:
> > Ok, this is interesting. I've been looking at merge test 41 for a
> > while and the difference with the patch applied is that a merge of a
> > propset eol-style change into the working copy applies the propset but
> > does not rework the line endings in the local file until committed.
> >
> > Without the patch applied, the line endings of the file in the wc get
> > updated immediately as part of the merge.
> >
> > However, the first situation (where the patch is applied) means that
> > merging the propset now has the same effect as manually doing the
> > propset (i.e. manually doing svn ps eol-style does not change the line
> > endings in the local file until you commit).
> >
> > So, my question is this... is the fact that the line endings were
> > changed as part of the merge of a propset, but not by a manual propset
> > a bug that this patch (inadvertently) fixes or was that difference a
> > deliberate decision?
> Hmm, that's interesting.
> Yes, it looks like an inconsistency on the surface, but I'm not sure
> it's inconsistent when considered deeply...
> When you receive a propset of svn:eol-style from the repository, you're
> also receiving whatever effect that propset had on the file it was
> committed on. That is, in the merge-from-repos case, the commit has
> already taken place, so it's natural that the line endings would change,
> along with the property, on the receiver's side.
> IOW, receiving the propset via update/merge is not quite the same as
> doing the propset manually in your working copy. One represents a
> commit that actually *has* taken place, the other represents an intent
> to commit.
> So I think the current behavior should be preserved.

So do I :-) It took me a few weeks before I figured out what the right
merge behaviour given an svn:eol-style property change, minimizing at
the same time the number of eol-translations. This is a change way
past 1.0 though. Can't remember exactly when ...

> I'm not saying it
> was a conscious decision (it may have been, I just don't remember). But
> I'm pretty sure we don't want to change a merge behavior that seems to
> have been working well for some years.
> Possibly we could change 'svn propset' to fix up the line endings at
> propset time... But surely we must have considered that and decided
> against? It's too obvious not to have been discussed. Did you see a
> comment anywhere indicating why we don't?



To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help_at_subversion.tigris.org
Received on 2008-05-08 21:47:49 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.