[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: Julian Foad <julianfoad_at_btopenworld.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2008 12:13:26 +0000

Mark Phippard wrote:
> Julian Foad <julianfoad_at_btopenworld.com> wrote:
> > This idea is right except for the "diff" aspect.
> > "svn diff" would show an all-lines-added diff.
> Would it? Given that this is an A+ and not an A then I'd expect to
> diff to only show the modifications to the file that differ from the
> history part. That is what I've seen in commit emails in the past
> when this is done.
> So I think the idea is still correct as proposed.

Oh yes... that's good. Thanks Mark. I'm glad I was wrong.

> The Right Way to handle a tree conflict on Update/switch is definitely
> to update the text-base to the new version,

Brane wrote:
> > But we were discussing the case where the file in the repo was
> > deleted, so there's no new version of the text base available.

Yes. I was talking abstractly. I meant "update the base metadata and
cache to reflect the new version" where, in this case, the "new version"
is nothing (node kind 'none').

I hadn't considered that the second step, re-scheduling the file as "A
+", would include putting the copy-from file in place as the "base"
file. Because of this, the end result of the whole "apply the incoming
delete and then reschedule as A+" will be that the base file will end up
being there just the same as it was; however, it will be serving a
different purpose: no longer a cache of the base-url_at_base-rev, but
instead a cache of copyfrom-url_at_copyfrom-rev.

- Julian

To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help_at_subversion.tigris.org
Received on 2008-11-27 13:13:53 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.