Re: problems with merging
From: Julian Foad <julianfoad_at_btopenworld.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2013 02:55:33 +0000 (GMT)
Stefan Küng wrote on 2013-01-30:
> On 30.01.2013 03:17, Julian Foad wrote:
I have filed <http://subversion.tigris.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4316> to track this.
> Using r1440553, this now works. Haven't tested with the CL client but I
This doesn't yet work in the command-line client (trunk_at_1443825).
[...]
We previously decided that if one revision range within a merge raises conflicts, then (assuming they aren't immediately resolved) the merge should abort rather than go on to try to merge the next revision range. That is because if we continue, and try to merge another change into a nodes that is conflict, we can't do so and we can't even properly record what happened. (It seems like too big a task to design a system that would handle it properly.)
What I would like to see happen here is:
* The first revision range of the merge raises one or more conflicts; you postpone resolving them.
* The merge errors out, telling you how to continue the merge after you resolve the conflicts.
- If it's a mergeinfo-aware merge, repeating the same merge should work.
- If it's the command-line client, this info shall be in a text message.
I am working on that.
Does that sound OK?
- Julian
|
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.