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

Re: 1.6 blocker? copy operation during update fails

From: Stefan Sperling <stsp_at_elego.de>
Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2009 11:12:35 +0100

On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 01:21:54AM +0100, Neels J Hofmeyr wrote:
>
>
> Paul Burba wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 10:27 PM, Neels J Hofmeyr <neels_at_elego.de> wrote:
> >> Hi guys,
> >>
> >> I've been looking at this, but in the end am back to square one. Anyway,
> >> I've established that r34158 entirely changes the code path for this
> >> scenario (issue #3354), and that's ok. :P
> >
> > I added a new XFailing update test in r35125 to cover issue #3354.
> >
> > I'm not entirely sure the expectations are correct however. Should we
> > be left with 'alpha' as scheduled for addition but conflicted and
> > alpha.moved added normally?
>
> You mean 'alpha' scheduled for deletion, right?
>
> >
> >> svn st update_tests-52.other\A\B\E
> > A + C update_tests-52.other\A\B\E\alpha
> > > local edit, incoming delete upon update
>
> That would be D.

You probably missed this discussion?
http://svn.haxx.se/dev/archive-2008-11/0957.shtml

I think the result of that discussion was that we agreed that for
items which ended up unversioned in 1.5 behaviour, "A+ C" is a
better state than "D C" in 1.6 behaviour.

Stefan
Received on 2009-01-10 11:12:59 CET

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