On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 11:23:55PM +0200, Neels J Hofmeyr wrote:
> Hi guys,
> I'd like to renew an old question, since I can't find any final conclusion
> to it: merge, --force and tree-conflicts detection. ... "?"
> Are we still positive that skipping tree-conflicts detection during merge
> with --force is no good?
> And, that a way to skip TC detection during merge is yet a missing feature?
> (does anyone remember an issue for this? couldn't find any.)
> I've also got this snippet from notes/tree-conflicts/detection.txt:
> SKIPPING DETECTION
I think the paragraph below was written before we started to
always skip tree-conflict victims, and before we updated
text-bases of tree conflict victims to the revision being
updated to, so that 'revert' yields the item at the new revision.
Since we're skipping tree-conflict victims automatically now,
you can run the merge twice, and the second merge will skip
the victim, just as if the user had passed --force.
Since that seems to cover all concerns voiced in the paragraph
below, I'd say the paragraph is outdated and should be deleted
from the notes, or replaced with a description of the current
> During an update or switch, we skip tree conflict detection if the
> user has provided the '--force' option. This allows an interrupted
> update to continue (see the use case 1 example below). This is in
> addition to the already-existing behavior: with '--force', update or
> switch will tolerate an obstruction of the same type as the item added
> at that path by the operation.
> During a merge, we skip tree conflict detection if the record_only
> field of the merge-command baton is TRUE. A record-only merge
> operation updates mergeinfo without touching files.
> Thanks for any comments.
Received on 2009-06-17 12:48:37 CEST