[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: Paul Burba <ptburba_at_gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2010 15:23:38 -0400

On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 2:34 PM, C. Michael Pilato <cmpilato_at_collab.net> wrote:
> 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."


Do you mean to let the merge complete and give the warning at the
*end* rather than stopping the merge on the first tree conflict due to
a missing subtree-caused-by-a-shallow-WC? After all, the user might
not care about some tree conflicts and want the merge to complete as
best it can.


> --
> C. Michael Pilato <cmpilato_at_collab.net>
> CollabNet   <>   www.collab.net   <>   Distributed Development On Demand
Received on 2010-04-14 21:24:07 CEST

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