Bert Huijben wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Johan Corveleyn [mailto:jcorvel_at_gmail.com]
>> Sent: dinsdag 11 juni 2013 23:37
>> To: Subversion Development
>> Subject: Re: Automatic tree conflicts resolution during svn update
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 4:27 PM, Stefan Sperling <stsp_at_elego.de>
> wrote:
>> > On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 02:12:14PM +0200, Stefan Sperling wrote:
>> >> On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 07:21:19PM +0400, Danil Shopyrin wrote:
>> >> > The current draft of the Subversion 1.8 Release Notes
> announces
>> >> > automatic tree conflicts resolution for locally moved files
> and
>> >> > directories. But it seems that this feature does not actually
> work in
>> >> > RC2. The detailed reproduction script is given below. I think
> that we
>> >> > should either drop this feature from the release notes or
> provide a
>> >> > better documentation on how to make it work.
>> >>
>> >> The feature is present and works as advertised. It's just not
> triggered
>> >> automatically because there were objections to making decisions on
>> >> behalf of the user.
>> >>
>> >> Note that this is the behaviour of 'svn' -- other clients
> can implement
>> >> different behaviour and suggest or even hard-code some default
> option
>> >> without asking the user.
>> >>
>> >> I think the problem with 'svn' is that the menu options
> were too hard
>> >> to figure out. After some discussion with Ivan, I've tweaked
> the
> conflict
>> >> prompt menu for clarity in this commit:
> http://svn.apache.org/r1491762
>> >>
>> >> Does this change settle the issue for you?
>> >
>> > FYI, this is what the new output looks like:
>> >
>> > $ svn up -r3
>> > Updating '.':
>> > C alpha
>> > At revision 3.
>> > Summary of conflicts:
>> > Tree conflicts: 1
>> > Tree conflict on 'alpha'
>> > > local file moved away, incoming file edit upon update
>> > Select: (mc) apply edit (recommended), (r) discard edit (breaks move),
>>
>> Why does discarding the incoming edit break the (local) move?
I was wondering the same thing.
> The copy/add part would be of a different revision than the delete part of
> the move if you don't apply the move.
That doesn't make any sense to me as a user. "Discard edit" sounds like it means "act as if the incoming edit was a no-op"... and I would not expect a no-op to break the local move.
- Julian
Received on 2013-06-12 00:28:55 CEST