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

Re: issue 3899 (copying conflict victims)

From: Stefan Sperling <stsp_at_elego.de>
Date: Thu, 26 May 2011 15:21:28 +0200

On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 02:27:02PM +0200, Markus Schaber wrote:
> When I have a local added (moved, copied) directory which tree conflicts
> on update with a remotely added directory, then I want to be able to
> resolve the conflict by moving/renaming my local variant out of the way,
> to allow the remote version to come in place.

You might as well revert the entire working copy, move things out of the
way to avoid the conflict (maybe even commit), and rerun the merge.
> As far as I understood your rule, you would forbid to move the tree
> conflicted directory.

You can still move it, but you would have to mark it resolved first.
This may seem a bit backwards -- you haven't really resolved the conflict
yet, after all. But the actions of resolving the conflict and marking
it resolved have always been independent and can done in either order.

Of course, the error message would tell you why the copy is failing,
and would suggest to mark the conflict as resolved before trying again.

Not allowing tree-conflicted items to be copied could also prevent mistakes
if people don't realise the conflict is there. E.g. tortoisesvn sometimes
cannot update the icons quickly enough so users not paying too much
attention can easily miss the tree conflict.
The copied stuff being in conflict might result in even more confusion later.
Received on 2011-05-26 15:22:23 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.