On Wed, 2010-08-04 at 11:23 -0400, Paul Burba wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 10:52 AM, Julian Foad <julian.foad_at_wandisco.com> wrote:
> > Stefan Sperling wrote:
> >> It does not seem possible right now to merge into locally added
> >> files, because the Subversion assumes that the merge target will
> >> always have a corresponding URL in the repository, and errors out.
> >> With a bit of special-casing during error handling in a few places,
> >> I succeeded in making this use case work:
> > [...]
> > Hi Stefan. In my opinion, Subversion should allow such a merge to be
> > attempted, and the result should be a textual merge like you've done
> > here
> > if the tree conflict detection policy is "relaxed", and should be a
> > tree conflict if the policy is "strict". (Yes, the "tree conflict
> > detection policy" switch only exists in my head.)
> I don't follow you there, how would a merge to a file ever be a tree
> conflict? Or do you mean if our merge target is an added directory?
> Stefan's patch supports that as well.
It's a tree conflict because the incoming change is "modification of
file FOO" and the local target is a file *named* FOO but ancestrally
unrelated to the source file FOO. It's similar to the situation that
we'd get if the target branch at one time did have the ancestrally
related FOO line on it but that FOO was then deleted and replaced by a
new file named FOO.
Received on 2010-08-04 19:14:42 CEST