Re: Merging the tree-conflicts branch to trunk

On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 12:27:26PM -0400, Karl Fogel wrote:
> Julian Foad <julianfoad_at_btopenworld.com> writes:
> > 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?

Some tests which originated on trunk produced situations that are tree
conflicts. They failed because they did not expect svn to flag a conflict.
I don't know if all of them have been fixed already.

The only problem I'm aware of (merging a replacement of a directory
is broken) was caused by the double-delete branch, a branch which
came into existence because the tree-conflicts branch required
the deletion of an already deleted item to be treated as a conflict
instead of a no-op.
See issue #3156, http://subversion.tigris.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3156

The double-delete branch was already merged into trunk in r32901.

Stefan

---------------------------------------------------------------------
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 20:11:12 CEST