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

Re: [RFC] Issue #3603 Fix - Should we do more?

From: C. Michael Pilato <cmpilato_at_collab.net>
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2010 14:34:27 -0400

Paul Burba wrote:
> In a perfect world maybe we'd give a error along the lines of 'hey,
> you are trying to reintegrate into a shallow WC and some of the paths
> affected by the merge aren't present, you are going to get tree
> conflicts, is this really what you want? :-)'
> But going this route adds more merge special casing and obviously has
> a performance penalty, two things we definitely don't need more of.

Can we give this feedback at the time of the conflict rather than up front?
 That is, can we avoid the performance penalty of an upfront merge forecast
but still tell folks, when they get those tree conflicts, "Hey, you could
avoid this kind of conflict by simply not having directory FOO missing by
sparse configuration; go flesh that sucker out and retry this reintegration."

C. Michael Pilato <cmpilato_at_collab.net>
CollabNet   <>   www.collab.net   <>   Distributed Development On Demand

Received on 2010-04-14 20:34:56 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.