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

Re: RFC: Ignoring conflict artifacts

From: Daniel Shahaf <d.s_at_daniel.shahaf.name>
Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2011 14:31:52 +0200

On Tuesday, November 01, 2011 8:18 AM, "C. Michael Pilato" <cmpilato_at_collab.net> wrote:
> On 11/01/2011 08:00 AM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> > Stefan2 asks how to ignore the *.{merge-left,merge-right,mine} files
> > when presenting a list of 'svn add' candidates.
> >
> > On IRC his solution is to loop through `svn info | grep
> > '^Conflict.*File: '` in the directory. (The alternative was to strip
> > the extension(s) and `svn info` that.) But we shouldn't really ask API
> > consumers to do that...
> >
> > So, RFC:
> >
> > Subversion should treat the conflict files (the files that occur as
> > values of the dirent abspath members of svn_wc_conflict_description2_t)
> > as ignored files --- as if they were matched by an svn:ignore property
> > or a global-ignores setting. The existing APIs would keep their current
> > behaviour of reporting such files as unversioned files. (Presumably
> > that means adding a new status enum value and coalescing them into
> > 'I'gnored in subversion/svn/status.c and in the API backwards
> > compatibility wrappers.) It would still be possible to 'svn add' such
> > files, just like it's possible to add ignored files today.
> >
> > Alternatively, it is suggested to teach svn_wc_add() (and friends?) to
> > skip such files (with notification) unless --force is passed (i.e., an
> > opt-in feature --- which of course the backward compatibility wrappers
> > will enable).
> >
> > Makes sense?
> I think I'm okay with adding this intentional ignoring logic in the
> command-line client (so long as it can be overridden). I'm less okay with
> modifying our APIs to automatically ignore such files.

I'm suggesting the APIs ignore such files, not exclude them. That
means the files will still be reported if the API equivalent of --no-
ignore is passed.

> It is a feature that if you wish to do so, you can 'svn add' your reject
> files, force the resolution of your conflict, and commit so that another
> team member can do the work of really resolving the commit.

Stefan2 made the same point on IRC, and that's why I specifically wrote:

> > It would still be possible to 'svn add' such files, just like it's
> > possible to add ignored files today.

> Besides, those reject files shouldn't be lying about anyway if the
> recommended resolution steps have been taken, right?

I don't think we should assume that no one ever has a use-case for not
resolving a conflict as soon as it happens.
Received on 2011-11-01 13:32:25 CET

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.