On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 08:59:58AM -0500, Hyrum K Wright wrote:
> While I've not done any experiments, it feel like it might be possible
> to heuristically detect some (but not all) moves by looking at copies,
> and asking if the source was deleted in the same revision. There are
> probably all kinds of corner cases I haven't considered, but at first
> blush that seems like it might work.
I've tried doing just that some months ago. It can be made to work
but we'll need a better conflict resolution framework first.
I've put my notes here:
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/subversion/branches/moves-scan-log/BRANCH-README
> The client still needs to be taught to actually use this information.
There are on-going efforts to implement working-copy-local moves
for Subversion 1.8. The bulk of the work is done. My personal goal
for 1.8 is to fix the remaining issues with the current local-moves
implementation in trunk. Philip has been doing great work in this area
that pushed the feature beyond what I originally anticipated.
I am confident that local-moves will "just work" in 1.8, and plan to
focus on improving handling of incoming moves in releases 1.9 and later.
Wether that will involve Editor-V2, or the scan-log approach (for
compatibility with old servers), or both, remains to be seen.
But it seems we're on the right track. We're trying to attack the problem
from several angles. We now have, as a collective, a much better
understanding of the problem space than when tree-conflicts first popped
up on the radar during the development of 1.5/1.6. From my point of view,
it is a question of when, not if, Subversion will properly merge renames.
Received on 2012-04-19 16:46:47 CEST