Re: [RFC] Issue #3603 Fix - Should we do more?
A belated +1 on this! Thanks for this simple yet huge usability
On Wed, 2010-04-14, Paul Burba wrote:
> One merge related item that came up was: '--reintegration should
> tolerate sparse checkouts that aren't affected'.
> I created issue #3603 to track this.
> The good news is that simply removing the check for a sparse WC works
> perfectly in the case where the 'missing' subtrees in the reintegrate
> target are unaffected by the merge: The merge succeeds, no new subtree
> mergeinfo is created, no errors, it just DTRT.
> If the reintegrate target is missing a subtree that *is* affected by
> the merge, then a tree-conflict occurs. Subtree mergeinfo is also set
> to partition the missing subtree so it doesn't inherit the mergeinfo
> set on the root (exactly like a non-reintegrate merge does already).
> My question is this: Is that sufficient?
> Fix issue #3603 'allow reintegrate merges into WCs with missing subtrees'.
> * subversion/libsvn_client/merge.c
> (ensure_wc_reflects_repository_subtree): Consider shallow WCs as ready
> to reintegrate to. That's it! Nothing special, it works as you'd
> * subversion/tests/cmdline/merge_tests.py
> (reintegrate_fail_on_shallow_wc): Rename to...
> (reintegrate_on_shallow_wc): ...this. Reimplement the test to expect
> success when reintegrating into a shallow WC.
> (test_list): Reflect test rename.
Received on 2010-04-16 10:38:16 CEST
This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev