On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 7:14 AM, Greg Stein <gstein_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> 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 But one of them refers to this outdated use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 is outdated.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.
Hi Greg,
I follow most of what you two are discussing, except this part about
skipping. Are you describing desired or actual behavior here? Or
something else entirely?
Paul
>> 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
>
------------------------------------------------------
http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=462&dsMessageId=1861624
Received on 2009-04-22 16:53:45 CEST