On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 11:47:42AM +0100, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> 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. ... "?"
> >
> > http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=462&dsMessageId=90455&orderBy=createDate&orderType=desc
> >
> > 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 below, I'd say the paragraph is outdated and should be deleted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
> behaviour.
Whoops, reverse, reverse!
I just checked, and it is actually true that tree conflicts do not
get flagged during a merge if --force is passed.
Apologies for any confusion I might have caused!
Stefan
> > 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.
> > ~Neels
> >
>
>
Received on 2009-06-17 13:16:27 CEST