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

Re: Help on 1.6-blocker #3334 - tree conflicts in update

From: Paul Burba <ptburba_at_gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2009 09:09:42 -0500

On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 3:48 PM, Julian Foad <julianfoad_at_btopenworld.com> wrote:
> Blocker:
>> * #3334: Tree conflicts "merry-go-round" about update updating the base.
>> Julian Foad is working on this. Done for when victim is a file, still
>> doing for when victim is a directory. [julianfoad]
>> See: <http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=462&dsMessageId=1019712>.
> I'm struggling with this and could use some help. I have rather little
> time to look at it these days.
> On the issue-3334-dirs branch, the remaining problem is "just" a matter
> of scheduling a directory tree to be re-added as a copy of what it was
> before.
> The function "schedule_existing_item_for_re_add()" tries to do this, but
> doesn't get the result quite right.
> On the branch I added a new "test" (update_tests.py 53). This "test"
> doesn't actually test anything, but just runs the tree-conflict
> scenario, and also runs a manual schedule-as-re-add command sequence, so
> that we can (manually) compare the resulting "entries" files.
> In test 53, the tree conflict victim is directory A/ and A's THIS_DIR
> entry needs a "revision" of 1, but it gets a revision of 2. That's all
> that is wrong with its THIS_DIR entry. There is nothing wrong with its
> children, I think. The only other problem is A's entry in its parent,
> which gets several fields wrong (different from the "manual copy" WC).
> Please could someone have a look at the differences between the entries
> files in test 53's two WCs, and see how to make
> "schedule_existing_item_for_re_add()" create that state.


I'll look at this today...and probably tomorrow too I'm sure :-\


Received on 2009-01-29 15:10:04 CET

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