[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: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 09:20:45 -0500

On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 9:06 AM, Hyrum K. Wright
<hyrum_wright_at_mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
> 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.

Your both right, I'll commit it to the branch then we'll take it from there.


Received on 2009-02-10 15:21:01 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.