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

Re: Issue #3486 (r38000 group) - Attempt to add tree conflict that already exists

From: Mark Phippard <markphip_at_gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2009 10:53:18 -0400

On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 6:39 AM, Julian Foad <julianfoad_at_btopenworld.com> wrote:
> Hi tree-conflict fans.
> <http://subversion.tigris.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3486>
> This is the bug that looks like:
>> $ svn merge -r10182:11149 https://svn/repo/trunk/foo .
>> svn: Attempt to add tree conflict that already exists at 'foo/src/x'
>> svn: Error reading spooled REPORT request response
>> $
> Possibly the main cause of extreme pain from this bug is that Subversion
> bails out of the merge when it hits this. If there are hundreds or
> thousands of items to merge, given that our merge is not easily
> re-startable from part way through, that makes it pretty much unusable.
> Paul Hammant brought this up the other day in a thread on <users@>,
> <http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=1065&dsMessageId=2396235>, and filed issue #3496 <http://subversion.tigris.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3496> about it. From a later message I understand he is looking into modifying Subversion so that it moves on past this error rather than bailing out. That sounds like a sensible plan if it is possible to do so while maintaining a consistent state.
> The other approach is to try to fix all the cases that lead to this
> error, because there are not supposed to be any such cases. (Issue
> #3486.) However, although this approach is correct and Stefan and Neels
> in particular have been working successfully on it in the r38000 group
> of fixes (branch 1.6.x-r38000), it is taking a long time to find all the
> different cases and there is not yet a complete fix.
> Does anyone else think making svn cope with the problem and move on is
> sensible? If so, I think Paul could do with some help on it as he is new
> to Subversion coding (although very familiar with Subversion).

Thanks Julian, I relayed the same advice.

The patch has been posted to users@. See:


Hopefully some of the tree conflicts gurus can look at it from an
approach standpoint and see if there is maybe a different way we can
handle these error situations.

Mark Phippard
Received on 2009-09-23 16:53:29 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.