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

Re: Do we better tolerate obstructed updates?

From: Stefan Sperling <stsp_at_elego.de>
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2010 15:57:25 +0200

On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 02:48:52PM +0100, Hyrum K. Wright wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 8:35 AM, Bert Huijben <bert_at_qqmail.nl> wrote:
> > I think it should check that a proper obstruction is notified and maybe that
> > a future update brings in the new data.
> Is this in the intended future behavior, or the current behavior? In
> modifying the JavaHL test which is having this problem, I don't see
> obstructed_update notified, only a tree conflict.

I think Neels changed the behaviour to flagging a tree conflict in r959735.
I am not sure if that is what we want. AFAIK we had decided long ago to not
treat obstructions as conflicts. But maybe we don't all agree on that?

I'd say mark the text XFail for now, and file an issue with milestone
1.7.0 prompting ourselves to make up our minds about this.

Received on 2010-07-13 15:58:32 CEST

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