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

Re: Updating local-moves (was: svn commit: r1301390 ...)

From: Greg Stein <gstein_at_gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2012 09:03:39 -0400

On Mar 16, 2012 8:58 AM, "Johan Corveleyn" <jcorvel_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> I do not agree, and I'm really looking forward to the day where
> subversion merges text changes into a moved file automatically.
> Of course it's a use case that you had another intention, in which
> case this automatic resolution doesn't do the right thing for you. But
> I think that's far, far less common than wanting these changes to be
> merged automatically. If we really need to support both use cases,
> we'd need to look into making the auto-resolution strategy
> configurable by the user (but with sensible defaults please).

Possibly. I hate more options/knobs, though.

I think the update should ask, "apply edits to A/f to your moved B/f?".

We could have --accept=apply-to-moves.

> In my eyes, your example isn't really very different from: I moved a
> block of code around in a file (or maybe changed the function
> signature), and someone else committed the removal of a single line
> inside this block. Now, upon update we currently also merge that
> one-line change automatically into the moved block of code, right? I
> hope we won't start arguing that this should create a text conflict

Strawman. No response.

Received on 2012-03-16 14:04:12 CET

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