[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: Tree conflict fix in 1.6.x STATUS

From: Julian Foad <julian.foad_at_wandisco.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 14:15:08 +0100

On Tue, 2009-08-18, Mark Phippard wrote:
> Julian,
> Just curious, are you planning to review this backport? The 1.6.5
> tarball should be rolling tomorrow and it would be good to get it in.

Thanks for the heads-up. I'll take a look.

- Julian

> * r38000, r38006, r38099, r38100, r38181
> Don't break the working copy when a tree-conflict features an incoming
> replace.
> Justification:
> My colleagues and some clients are really annoyed by this problem.
> Although it's been fixed, it is not in 1.6.x yet, which is met with
> little understanding. Releasing 1.6.5 without this patch would
> probably be some bad publicity...
> Notes:
> If a merge has a delete followed by an add on the same node, and
> also that node is modified locally, svn tried to create two tree-
> conflicts on the same node. That hit an assertion and bailed out,
> breaking the working copy.
> The cmdline test for this issue is merge_replace_causes_tree_conflict
> in merge_tests.py, should become nr. 133.
> (My `make check' with these revisions merged to 1.6.x is clean)
> Votes:
> +1: neels, stsp

Received on 2009-08-18 15:16:57 CEST

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.

This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.