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

Quoting Paul Burba <ptburba_at_gmail.com>:

> On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 9:20 AM, Paul Burba <ptburba_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 9:06 AM, Hyrum K. Wright
> ...
>>>> 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.
>
> Done r35791

Hi Paul,

I reviewed the patch. It looks great! +1 on merging to trunk.

Also, the changes you made recently to the test expectations look OK
to me. Specifically, the following revisions:

35782
35779
35765
35758
35757
35738
35727
35726

A minor note regarding 35758 (local tree delete, incoming file add):
In 1.5 and earlier, an incoming added file is schedule-normal. But it
gets deleted anyway at the next commit, because it's in a dir scheduled
for deletion. So I agree with you that status 'D ' makes more sense.

Regards,
Steve

-- 
Stephen Butler | Software Developer
elego Software Solutions GmbH
Gustav-Meyer-Allee 25 | 13355 Berlin | Germany
fon: +49 30 2345 8696 | mobile: +49 163 25 45 015
fax: +49 30 2345 8695 | http://www.elegosoft.com
Geschäftsführer: Olaf Wagner | Sitz der Gesellschaft: Berlin
Amtsgericht Charlottenburg HRB 77719 | USt-IdNr: DE163214194