[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: Hyrum K. Wright <hyrum_wright_at_mail.utexas.edu>
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 08:06:34 -0600

On Feb 10, 2009, at 7:59 AM, Mark Phippard wrote:

> On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 10:31 PM, Paul Burba <ptburba_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 3:47 PM, Stephen Butler <sbutler_at_elego.de>
>> wrote:
>>> Hi Paul,
>>> I just committed to the 3334 branch a new test in update_tests.py,
>>> in the style of the UC2 schedule-re-add test, but for UC1. It may
>>> shed some light on the problem.
>>> Basically we have to fiddle with all the open_*, add_* and close_*
>>> callbacks in the update editor, to get rid of the skipping for UC1.
>>> I've hacked at them for some hours, but now I've lowered my sights
>>> to simply making add_file() use the same logic as add_directory(),
>>> because add_file() raises tree conflicts too often. But once I
>>> have that down, I'll return to the bigger problem.
>>> cheers,
>>> Steve
>> Gents,
>> Attached is patch against the issue-3334-dirs branch that fixes all
>> the outstanding test failures on that branch. I suspect there are a
>> couple more 'merry-go-round' cases to be dealt with, incoming changes
>> to locally replaced directories comes to mind, I'll think on those
>> tomorrow. In the meantime, any review and/or testing of this patch
>> is
>> appreciated.
>> Also, if any of you have a chance, please look at the test
>> expectation
>> changes I've made the last few days on the issue-3334-dirs branch.
>> Obviously passing tests don't mean much if the test expectations are
>> wrong :-)
> Good to see, but geez why are you sending a patch? You are already
> working on a branch just commit it and point people at the commit.
> I still think this should all get on trunk -- today. There is no need
> for this to be on a branch at this point and if it was on trunk there
> are more of us that could test it and work with it. As an example, we
> have a Subclipse developer working on the graphical resolutions and
> running tree conflict scenarios regularly. He could use this fix now
> and start working on it and give feedback on bugs if he hits them.
> That is where the three example scripts I have originated (they all
> work now with this patch).

+1 to moving this to trunk, especially if all the tests are passing.



Received on 2009-02-10 15:07:15 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.