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

Re: Subversion merge creates bogus tree conflicts

From: Stefan Sperling <stsp_at_elego.de>
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2013 15:40:46 +0100

On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 09:18:15AM -0500, David Moon wrote:
> Is it really right that
> independently created directories with identical sets of child names
> can be merged, but independently created directories with disjoint
> sets of child names cannot be merged?

No, of course it isn't. What Subversion should really be doing here
is offering functionality which automates tree conflict resolution
to the point where the user can easily trigger the behaviour best
suited for the particular use case at hand.

However, there is the idealised behaviour the community would like to
see in the future, and there is the current behaviour of the implementation.

The current behaviour has been derived from design goals that have long
been reached (supersede CVS), and as technical demands on Subversion
increase (do lots of refactoring and branching and merging, which nobody
really did in CVS) we're finding more and more cases where Subversion's
current behaviour is insufficient.

Part of the process of improving Subversion's behaviour are discussions
such as the one you have raised. This is very important to allow us to
grow the tool into a direction the userbase will be happier with.

What you'll need to consider is that people will respond to your
question in at least two ways:

 1) Discuss and suggest desired behaviour to address your particular use
    case, with an eye on improving a future version of Subversion.

 2) Help you understand the limitations of the current implementation,
    and perhaps suggest ways of dealing with your use case with the
    current implementation.

Please try not to confuse a response that attempts to help you do
point 2 with a response that discusses point 1.

I believe Julian is trying to help you to address point 2, to allow
you to fix your problem with the current implementation somehow.
You seem to be responding to that with a question that belongs into a
discussion of point 1.

Just making sure you're not talking past each other :)
Received on 2013-01-15 15:42:37 CET

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

This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.