On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 5:36 AM, Julian Foad <julianfoad_at_btopenworld.com> wrote:
> Paul Burba wrote on 27 March 2012:
>> Julian Foad wrote:
>>> The check for switched subtrees: I think we should enable this by default.
>>> I suppose the issue here must be that we don't have a compelling use
>>> case for supporting such a merge, and so we haven't defined and don't
>>> want to spend the effort of trying to define what such a merge should
>>> mean. We can explain what the merge code *does* in such a case, we
>>> just can't give a requirements-based reason for *why* it does what it
>>> does. Paul or anyone, please enlighten me if that's not the case.
>> There are two "whys" to consider here:
>> First, "why" does a user merge into a WC with switched subtrees? On
>> that I agree with you, I've never seen a compelling case is. The few
>> users I've come across who did it usually did so by mistake or were
>> merging changes that they knew would not touch the switched subtree.
> OK; nor me. (I can see it could sometimes be convenient to merge into a WC with switched subtrees when the user knows that the merge will not touch the switched subtrees, but even so, that doesn't necessarily mean it's a good idea.)
>> Regardless of why users do it, they do it and it was something we
>> allowed merge to do pre-1.5 (i.e. pre-mergetracking), so I tried to
>> support it.
>> Second: Why does the merge code do what it does when faced with a
>> switched subtree. I'm guessing you see this "what" the code does,
>> that makes it sound as if the current behavior is somehow arbitrary.
> Sorry, I did indeed imply it may be a bit unfounded, as I felt I had no point of reference for the "why". But I agree it makes sense to behave as you described below...
>> The "why" of the current behavior is tied to the fact that by default
>> svn:mergeinfo is inheritable. [...]:
>> | \
>> | \
>> | SSS('/SRC:N')
>> a) Non-inheritable mergeinfo is recorded on the parent [...]
>> b) Normal inheritable mergeinfo is recorded on the root [...]
>> c) Normal inheritable mergeinfo is recorded on siblings [...]
>> d) If the WC-Root isn't the parent [it gets normal mergeinfo ...]
>>  There are other reasons a subtree might be missing [...]
>> mergetracking behavior and reasoning for this behavior is the same in
>> all these cases, though a bit simpler in the non-switched cases
>> because the subtree is really missing and not "replaced" by something
> This description would make a superior replacement for the
> first two bullet points of
> would it not?
> There is an implied logic for the question "Why behave like this?" that seems pretty intuitive; let's see if I can actually capture it in words:
> If a subtree (SS) is switched, that means the user has chosen for
> the time being to work with a substitute for the original subtree
> (SS_at_BASE), knowing that any modifications made in SS can be
> committed only to the repository location of SS and the original
> subtree SS_at_BASE remains hidden and unaffected.
> The general semantics of a merge is to apply local modifications
> to the working copy and record the merge as having been applied
> to the tree that is represented by the working copy.
> Merge tracking should ensure that the subtree of the merge that
> goes into SS is recorded as being applied to SS, while the
> subtree SS_at_BASE should be recorded as not having received that
This makes a bit more sense to me:
"Merge tracking should ensure that any changes made by the merge to SS
are recorded as merged to the repository location which SS actually
represents while the subtree SS_at_BASE should be recorded as not having
received that merge."
> Since the working copy represents parts of two different branches,
> two parts of the merge are thus applied to the two different
> branches, and recorded as such when the user commits the result.
> If the user is doing a merge that may affect SS, it is reasonable
> to assume that SS is an alternative variant of SS_at_BASE rather than
> some totally unrelated item. So, in terms of Subversion's loose
> branching semantics, SS is a 'branch' of SS_at_BASE. If the user
> chooses to merge when the assumption is false and SS doesn't have
> a sensible branching relationship with SS_at_BASE, the result will be
> nonsensical or, in concrete terms, there will be merge conflicts.
> Note: Many typical branching policies would forbid committing to
> two branches at once, let alone committing merges to two branches
> at once. However, the user may have reasons for doing this merge
> without intending to commit the result as-is.
> Your description cover cases where the merge may or may not affect the inside of the subtree. One case not made explicit is where the merge deletes the switched subtree. Would the rule there be:
> * If the incoming change deletes the path SS, then it is interpreted as deleting the entry SS from SSP's list of children.
Correct, SS_at_BASE is deleted, *but* the repository location represented
by the switched subtree is also deleted -- Both are deleted. Not sure
what the ideal behavior is, but this is nothing new (it pre-dates
merge-tracking). Honestly this particular use-case fell through the
cracks, I don't recall it ever being discussed.
> Therefore SS is removed from the WC, and so is no longer a switched path, and the mergeinfo change can be recorded normally on SSP without any need for non-inheritable or subtree mergeinfo.
Agreed, non-inheritable mergeinfo should not be necessary, but
non-inheritable mergeinfo is recorded. I filed an issue for this:
> And as for the repository path that SS represented while it was still switched, we do not want to record any mergeinfo change on that path at all
We couldn't record anything on that path anyway, because we deleted it.
> (nor on that path's repository-parent path,
In a perfect world we'd have a way to record this, since a merge *did*
remove one of it's children, and that information is lost, but this
seems very much an edge case.
> nor anything to do with it).
> - Julian
Received on 2012-04-20 17:42:57 CEST