On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 16:57, Stefan Sperling <stsp_at_elego.de> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 03:42:16PM -0500, Hyrum K. Wright wrote:
>> [1] I don't fully understand *why* this is true, just that it is. My
>> guess is that people have thought "hey, while we're changing
>> everything in the working copy, let's change this, too." If that is
>> the sole reason for making 1.7 block on the conflict storage work,
>> then I would submit that in that way lies madness, and we need to
>> seriously rethink this dependency.
>
> See http://svn.haxx.se/dev/archive-2010-08/0555.shtml
> (Note that Bert is replying to himself, i.e. the first-level quote and
> the normal text was written by him.)
Well... Bert is talking about recording the filenames of the conflict
files. That is different from the more general "recording conflicts"
problem.
IOW, we could record the svnpatch reject file in the "conflicts" skel,
but not worry about migrating the directory-level tree conflict
information to the new format.
I'd prefer to see a full migration, but figured the point needs to be
brought up.
Cheers,
-g
Received on 2010-10-27 20:25:05 CEST