On Mon, 2008-09-15 at 12:27 -0400, Karl Fogel wrote:
> Julian Foad <julianfoad_at_btopenworld.com> writes:
> > I am merging the tree-conflicts branch to trunk today. This is by no
> > means "finished". Some tree-conflict behaviour is not yet done or not
> > yet as we want it. The merge is to facilitate further work in this area.
>
> +1 The sooner merged, the better.
Merged to trunk in r33082. Branch removed in r33083.
> > What's good?
> >
> > - Many tree conflict situations will be detected and reported, and
> > will block any attempt to commit until marked as resolved.
> >
> > - Most existing test pass. (Some were modified to expect the new
> > behaviour).
> >
> >
> > What's not so good?
> >
> > - Several existing tests are marked XFail, mostly because they don't
> > expect the new behaviour and the new behaviour is not yet as we want it
> > [1]
>
> But these are not regressions from currently-working trunk behavior,
> right?
Right. At least not obviously so. It's not that the features being
tested are broken, it's that part of the test involves a tree conflict
and the expected output has changed. Where the new behaviour looks
completely right, we just adjusted the test to expect it. In these
remaining cases, either the new output is not how we want it yet or I
haven't yet figured out how to make the test expect the new behaviour.
- Julian
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help_at_subversion.tigris.org
Received on 2008-09-15 19:52:04 CEST