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

Re: Tree conflict merry-go-round on update/switch

From: Branko Čibej <brane_at_xbc.nu>
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2008 21:35:12 +0100

Mark Phippard wrote:
> It might be interesting to investigate a new WC state for an item that
> is unversioned but has a tree conflict. Perhaps an item like this
> could still live in entries and still have a text-base for diff. svn
> resolve would have the option of scheduling the item for addition back
> to the repository, or removing it from the WC. svn revert could
> remove it from the WC.
>

That's an interesting approach ... that state would be a cross between
"added" and "locally deleted"; it gets the file-in-wc-not-in-repo part
from the first, and the text-base-available part from the second. Plus
mark it as "conflicted" which makes it uncommittable. I suggest the
state be called [W]eird in svn status. :)

Possible resolutions would then be:

svn revert: W -> nil, file and text base are gone
svn resolved: W -> A+, file and text base remain

Of course manualy diffing/patching/moving still works.
Not sure how that approach works for directories, though; quite likely
the results would be somewhat horrible.

> It is nice that the current approach makes it easy to produce a diff,
> but I do not really like that the item reports itself as 'M'odified as
> that suggests it is still a versioned item that can be committed --
> when it cannot be.
>

Yup.

-- Brane

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help_at_subversion.tigris.org
Received on 2008-11-25 21:35:37 CET

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.