> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul Burba [mailto:ptburba_at_gmail.com]
> Sent: donderdag 10 januari 2013 19:59
> To: Bert Huijben
> Cc: dev_at_subversion.apache.org
> Subject: Re: svn commit: r1431114 -
> On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 12:38 PM, Bert Huijben <bert_at_qqmail.nl> wrote:
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: pburba_at_apache.org [mailto:pburba_at_apache.org]
> >> Sent: woensdag 9 januari 2013 23:04
> >> To: commits_at_subversion.apache.org
> >> Subject: svn commit: r1431114 -
> >> cmd.c
> >> Author: pburba
> >> Date: Wed Jan 9 22:04:24 2013
> >> New Revision: 1431114
> >> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1431114&view=rev
> >> Log:
> >> Fix issue #4139 'Subversion cannot perform merge if there's a file with
> >> the same name as directory'.
> >> * subversion/svn/merge-cmd.c
> >> (svn_cl__merge): If the basename of the source is the same as the
> >> basename of the current working directory, then assume the cwd is the
> >> target.
> > I never heard of and/or noticed this behavior
> Hi Bert,
> Which behavior are you referring to: The old behavior, the bug with
> the old behavior, or the new behavior?
> The old behavior was this:
> 'svn merge ^/src/base-name .' and 'svn merge ^src/base-name' both used
> the cwd at the merge target *unless* there is a file in the cwd with
> the same name as the source basename. In that case the file was the
> merge target.
The question I asked was, shouldn't we make that first case think the "." is an explicit target?
"I tell svn where to merge to and I would have guessed that it just did what I asked."
That we want to be smart for the second case is a different question, but my preference would be that this explicit '.' case would be handled as the plain api.
(Our testsuite doesn't care: it only tests the second variant)
Received on 2013-01-10 20:15:53 CET