On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 12:56, Stefan Sperling <stsp_at_stsp.name> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 02:27:40AM +0200, Greg Stein wrote:
>> Hey all,
>>
>> I believe that I might be seeing a bug in the local-add-with-history
>> and update-with-incoming-add. (NOTE: this is a regular old wc-1
>> problem)
>>
>> First off, I have no idea what "use case" this is. The numbers seem to
>> be all messed up. update_editor.c:1561 says 3.5, but
>> notes/tree-conflicts/ has something else entirely for "use case 3". So
>> color me confused.
>
> I have no idea what 3.5 is supposed to be, either.
> Isn't there a comment that explains what is meant?
There are comments, yes. But one of them refers to this outdated use
case. Gotcha.
> But anyway, keep in mind that virtually everything in notes/tree-conflicts
> is outdated. We have a much better and more fine-grained understanding of
> tree conflicts at this point than the notes reflect.
> Sadly, the notes don't reflect what we know, it's all in the heads
> of a couple of people and scattered across the mailing lists :(
I hear ya. There is a lot of wc-ng like that, too. Trapped in my head
and Hyrum's.
>...
>> Step 2. Even worse. "svn revert omicron" to revert my (apparent) local
>> add. The file omicron's schedule-add is removed, and the file becomes
>> unversioned. "svn up" does nothing since the client thinks it has r4
>> completely.
>>
>> The revert *should* revert to the omicron sent down from the server.
>> Worst case, it could revert to a "deleted" state, which an "svn up"
>> would correct by pulling down a new copy of the file.
>
> Yes. I believe we have an issue with the number of text bases in wc-1
> here, and also with how incoming adds are being done. I think Julian
We have enough text bases. The incoming text-base would be placed into
the "revert base". Thus, if I reverted my local-copy, the r4 omicron
would be installed.
> has been struggling with these kinds of questions before.
> Update just installs a new text base, the old one is gone.
> Or something...
In this case, I think the file is marked as "skipped" and the incoming
base gets dropped on the floor.
> Point being: I don't care about fixing bugs in wc-1 anymore.
> Make wc-ng do the right thing. You already have the right behaviour
> in your head, so if you can, please make wc-ng do the right thing.
I worry about an add/add conflict in 1.6, and leaving working copies
in a broken state. At a minimum, it would be nice to have an issue
filed and a test constructed. (/me looks at pburba...)
For wc-ng, I will see that it does the right thing. Thanks.
Cheers,
-g
------------------------------------------------------
http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=462&dsMessageId=1858850
Received on 2009-04-22 13:14:39 CEST