[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: Julian Foad <julian.foad_at_wandisco.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2010 09:37:37 +0100

A belated +1 on this! Thanks for this simple yet huge usability
enhancement, Paul.

- Julian

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
> expect.
>
> * 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.
>
> ]]]
>
> Paul
Received on 2010-04-16 10:38:16 CEST

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