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

Issues 3525 & 3526 - please don't forget about these bogus tree conflicts

From: Johan Corveleyn <jcorvel_at_gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2010 22:10:06 +0100

Hi devs,

I know a lot of you are mostly focused on wc-ng work right now (which
is a good thing: focus is good, wc-ng is good). But I'd like to
highlight two other important issues, which can IMHO be very confusing
to users, and which I think should definitely be fixed by 1.7 (or if
possible, sooner). I don't know if wc-ng makes fixing these easier,
but they should be fixed none the less.

* http://subversion.tigris.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3525 - Locked
file which is scheduled for delete causes tree conflict
* http://subversion.tigris.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3526 - Commit of
newly added file followed by move (or delete) of parent dir causes
tree conflict

The reason why they are so confusing is that you can get them all on
your own, even if you're the only user of the repository, using only a
single working copy. If you're the only one working in a particular
area of the tree, it can be very disconcerting to suddenly be
confronted with a tree conflict like this. Why on earth can I get
conflicts (of whatever nature) if I'm the only guy making changes???

Ever since tree conflicts arrived, I try to explain to my users how
they happen ("for instance, you edit a file, but in the meantime
someone else committed a move, ..."). But the above issues don't fall
into that category, so it's hard for me to maintain that svn is well
designed software. And users don't really care about the mixed
revision working copy (implementation detail).

(note: it's already disconcerting enough as it is that you can get
"out of date" errors even if you're the only user of a repo, working
with a single working copy. I consider this a bug actually, or in any
case very unexpected behavior. You'd expect that if you're the only
user working with stuff, that you can never ever get out of date. If
that wouldn't be the case, issue 3526 would not be an issue.)

So, please don't forget about these issues. If someone could mark
those two bugs as "Target milestone 1.7", that would give me some
reassurance that they will be looked at before 1.7 day ...

Kind regards,
Received on 2010-03-20 22:10:34 CET

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.