AW: Conflict on identical binary files
From: Markus Schaber <m.schaber_at_3s-software.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2012 08:26:58 +0000
I guess that actually attaching the patch file is a good idea, in general. :-)
The mismatching commend sneaked in because I copied the test case above as a start of my test. :-(
I just was about to add a patch for the 2 README files to clarify the issues, and just noticed that phurba already committed a text explaining when to assign an issue, and how to mark it for C and Python tests.
So there's one issue left: Adding new python tests to the end of the list.
I attached a patch to clarify the documentation in this point.
--- commit message ---
--- end of broadcast ---
-- ___________________________ We software Automation. 3S-Smart Software Solutions GmbH Markus Schaber | Developer Memminger Str. 151 | 87439 Kempten | Germany | Tel. +49-831-54031-0 | Fax +49-831-54031-50 Email: firstname.lastname@example.org | Web: http://www.3s-software.com CoDeSys internet forum: http://forum.3s-software.com Download CoDeSys sample projects: http://www.3s-software.com/index.shtml?sample_projects Managing Directors: Dipl.Inf. Dieter Hess, Dipl.Inf. Manfred Werner | Trade register: Kempten HRB 6186 | Tax ID No.: DE 167014915 -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: Daniel Shahaf [mailto:danielsh_at_elego.de] Gesendet: Montag, 27. Februar 2012 15:11 An: Markus Schaber Cc: Subversion Dev (dev_at_subversion.apache.org) Betreff: Re: Conflict on identical binary files Welcome aboard Markus. There were a few issues with this patch: * No log message * A typo in the docstring * A comment about binary props that didn't match the code below it * No issue number for a new XFail test They were easy to fix, and the patch itself was good, so I've fixed them myself and with the issue number you've provided on IRC (#4128) committed this as r1294161. Thanks for the patch, Daniel Markus Schaber wrote on Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 07:42:29 +0000: > Hi, > > Von: Philip Martin [mailto:philip.martin_at_wandisco.com] > > Markus Schaber <m.schaber_at_3s-software.com> writes: > > >> The last step (svn update) triggers a conflict prompt for svnobj, > >> despite the fact that the remote and local files are bit-for-bit > >> identical. > >> > >> As I was told by Daniel Shahaf, he expects this case to be resolved > >> without a conflict. > > > We could resolve the conflict in this case, but there is currently no code to do it. Perhaps libsvn_wc/merge.c:merge_file_trivial could detect this case and set svn_wc_merge_unchanged? > > As discussed on IRC, and as a first step to the solution, I created a test case on the weekend. See the attached diff. > > I hope I'll find time to develop a fix during the next days (and > actually get my feet wet deep in the Subversion code base for the > first time - woohoo. :-) > > > Best regards > > Markus Schaber > -- > ___________________________ > We software Automation. > > 3S-Smart Software Solutions GmbH > Markus Schaber | Developer > Memminger Str. 151 | 87439 Kempten | Germany | Tel. +49-831-54031-0 | > Fax +49-831-54031-50 > > Email: email@example.com | Web: http://www.3s-software.com > CoDeSys internet forum: http://forum.3s-software.com Download CoDeSys > sample projects: > http://www.3s-software.com/index.shtml?sample_projects > > Managing Directors: Dipl.Inf. Dieter Hess, Dipl.Inf. Manfred Werner | > Trade register: Kempten HRB 6186 | Tax ID No.: DE 167014915
This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.