Why wouldn't you just create it *every* time with the conflict markers?
Please don't add more conditions on "well, I guess if it is there,
then we can do XYZ. if it isn't there, then we won't." Yet another
condition ends up in the code where we have a hard time trying to
determine if XYZ has actually happened.
On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 02:28, Stefan Sperling <stsp_at_elego.de> wrote:
> Author: stsp
> Date: Wed Jan 14 17:28:55 2009
> New Revision: 35257
> * subversion/libsvn_wc/merge.c
> (svn_wc__merge_internal): Add a huge brain-dump comment to
> document possible insight gained into issue #3354 before
> I fall asleep on this oh-my-so-comfortable couch (look,
> the cat has already fallen asleep, awwww...)
> Modified: trunk/subversion/libsvn_wc/merge.c
> URL: http://svn.collab.net/viewvc/svn/trunk/subversion/libsvn_wc/merge.c?pathrev=35257&r1=35256&r2=35257
> --- trunk/subversion/libsvn_wc/merge.c Wed Jan 14 14:31:50 2009 (r35256)
> +++ trunk/subversion/libsvn_wc/merge.c Wed Jan 14 17:28:55 2009 (r35257)
> @@ -581,6 +581,33 @@ svn_wc__merge_internal(svn_stringbuf_t *
> /* Assume conflict remains, fall through to code below. */
> + /* TODO: Issue #3354: And what if the conflicted file
> + * does not yet exist on disk (i.e. in ACTUAL)?
> + *
> + * It looks like this code was written with the
> + * implicit assumption that a copy of the conflicted
> + * file already exists in ACTUAL.
> + *
> + * But that is not true in the 'copyfrom' case.
> + * If a text conflict is found while merging local
> + * changes from the copyfrom file to the copied file
> + * added by the update, the merge_target only
> + * exists in WC meta-data (because update_editor.c,
> + * add_file_with_history(), put it there).
> + * But it does not yet exist in ACTUAL!
> + *
> + * Since the merge_target is never created in ACTUAL,
> + * the commands added to the log below fail miserably.
> + *
> + * So what we probably should be doing here is checking
> + * whether the merge_target exists in ACTUAL, and if
> + * it if does not, create it with conflict markers
> + * intact, and in text-conflicted state.
> + *
> + * Well, that is my theory anyway.
> + * I hope to be proven correct, but it's too late
> + * at night already to test my theory... --stsp */
Received on 2009-01-15 05:18:02 CET