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

Re: tree-conflicts: please note r34454 and r34455

From: Julian Foad <julianfoad_at_btopenworld.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2008 19:54:40 +0000

On Fri, 2008-11-28 at 05:24 +0100, Neels J Hofmeyr wrote:
> Hi tree-conflicts folks,
> I changed the update_ switch_ and merge_tests.py DeepTreeTestcases so that
> they expect the actual desired behaviour, not our development state in r34454.
> I found and fixed a bug in update that didn't see node addition/deletion as
> a local mod in r34455. A quick review would be nice.
> Do we also need to check for entry->deleted?
> Do we need to check "hidden" nodes?
> Do we need to use svn_wc__walk_entries_and_tc()?
> And is it good to include that schedule check in entry_has_local_mods(),
> even though it is both exclusive and blindingly simple?
> Well, in result, all of the update_ switch_ and merge_tests.py
> DeepTreeTestcases justly pass except use case 5 (merge with incoming tree del).

Neels, these both look good to me.

(And thanks for your work on the merge-skips-obstructions branch last

- Julian

To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help_at_subversion.tigris.org
Received on 2008-11-28 23:49:45 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.