[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: Paul Burba <ptburba_at_gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 9 May 2011 14:34:22 -0400

On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 10:19 AM, Stefan Sperling <stsp_at_elego.de> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 03:07:30PM +0100, Hyrum K. Wright wrote:
>> Could you file the issue?
> Sure: http://subversion.tigris.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3680

Hi All,

So how do we resolve this issue? The crux seems to be:

  In r959735, some obstruction cases were changed to cause tree conflicts,
  resulting in failing tests in the JavaHL bindings. It's unclear whether the
  test's expectations should be changed, or whether flagging tree conflicts on
  obstructions is what we want to do.

It's true that with Neels' changes in r959735 we had some
inconsistencies with how unversioned obstructions were handled, but
with his subsequent change in r965912 we are now consistent: An
incoming add of a [file|dir|symlink] onto an unversioned
[file|dir|symlink] is now always a tree conflict.

This seems preferable to the 1.6. behavior where we simply stopped
with an error (potentially mid-may through the update) as soon as an
add was attempted with an unversioned obstruction.

Are there some wcng subtleties that have not been discussed in this
thread or in the issue?

Received on 2011-05-09 20:34:50 CEST

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

This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.