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

Re: Tree conflict bug?

From: Stefan Sperling <stsp_at_elego.de>
Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2008 10:21:25 +0000

On Mon, Nov 03, 2008 at 03:30:48AM +0100, Neels J. Hofmeyr wrote:
> Stefan Sperling wrote:
> > See
> > http://subversion.tigris.org/svn_1.5_releasenotes.html#copy-move-improvements
> >
> >> So getting the local mods in there is more like, say, an accident, right? Is
> >> this always safe? Is it checked to be?
> >
> > Retaining the local mods is the goal of this feature.
> Ah. :)
> So this should actually auto-resolve a tree-conflict, somehow. In the nature
> of tree-conflicts, there must first be some blocking though, letting the
> change happen once the user acknowledges it. Ok, we know that by now. ;)

I think we should transfer local mods to moved files automatically.

I'm not sure about copies. Mercurial does transfer local mods made
to a file X to all copies of X coming in during an update. But I suspect
they do this mostly to handle the move case (they have, like us, the
broken model that a move equals copy+delete).

But until we have proper moves *cough*, we might as well do what
Mercurial does (which is still much smarter than keeping the local
mods in the file at the source path of the move operation.)


To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help_at_subversion.tigris.org
Received on 2008-11-03 11:21:52 CET

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.