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

Re: Subversion in 2010

From: Stefan Sperling <stsp_at_elego.de>
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 2010 19:32:20 +0000

On Mon, Jan 04, 2010 at 01:45:07PM -0500, Mark Mielke wrote:
> On 01/04/2010 01:25 PM, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> >On Mon, Jan 04, 2010 at 01:01:14PM -0500, Mark Mielke wrote:
> >>Again, I appreciate the unique difficulties that the Subversion
> >>architecture introduces, and I appreciate the efforts done so far -
> >>merge tracking in 1.5, tree conflict resolution in 1.6 - but this
> >>area still needs work.
> >I'd be really happy if we already had tree conflict resolution!
> >Right now, Subversion can *detect* tree conflicts, but it is far
> >from resolving any of them automatically.
> If it doesn't resolve them (any? all?) yet, then this would explain
> one of the results I saw and couldn't explain. It knew the files had
> moved, it said it completed the merge - but the merge was missing. I
> became too busy to chase it down! :-(

Out of curiosity, where did you get the idea from that Subversion
could resolve tree conflicts for you?
Is there documentation which is not clear enough and needs to be fixed?

Received on 2010-01-04 20:33:11 CET

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