[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: Stefan Sperling <stsp_at_elego.de>
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2010 22:07:05 +0200

On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 03:36:31PM -0400, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
> I would feel more warm and fuzzy if
> I knew that the tree conflict information that we leave around is clear
> about the reason for the conflict. That a missing-due-to-sparse-checkouts
> directory is the reason for the conflict, not just some generic "something
> is missing" note. That way folks can immediately know, if not by explicit
> recommendation stored in the conflict information then at least by
> inference, that they could probably avoid the conflict by reverting the
> merge, de-shallowing the directories that the merge wished were present, and
> then repeating the merge.

Maybe it would be a good idea to store information like ambient depth,
switched subtrees etc. in the wc-ng conflict store? This is similar to
what Stephen Butler has suggested in the conflict storage spec:

### sbutler: What about mixed-revision working copies? Let's record
### the equivalent of svn_wc_revision_status_t, plus the target rev:
###
### ("update" MIN_REV MAX_REV SWITCHED MODIFIED TARGET_REV)
###
### Otherwise, the user may get the mistaken impression that the local
### tree is entirely at the URL and revision of the victim dir.

Stefan
Received on 2010-04-14 22:07:41 CEST

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