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

Re: Merge bug causes changesets to be applied although this should not be the case

From: Fredrik Orderud <forderud_at_gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2013 21:30:19 +0200

On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 5:18 PM, Daniel Shahaf <danielsh_at_elego.de> wrote:

> Fredrik Orderud wrote on Tue, Aug 06, 2013 at 22:40:02 +0200:
> > I've now written an XFAIL test for merging the same change change twice.
> > Patch attached. The test fails as expected due to the lack of conflict.
> > This is the first test I've ever written for subversion, so there are
> > probably some improvement opportunities. I suspect that one weak spot is
> > that a "greek-tree" structure is generated without being used in the
> test.
> > Also, comparison of console output for merge results feels a little
> fragile.
> Yes, agreed on both points. You could use A/mu instead of creating a new
> file, and use one of the svntest/actions.py helpers that parse the
> output of merge/status instead of depending on the exact byte-by-byte
> expected output. More below.
> > Please let me know if there are any comments to the patch, and I'll do my
> > best to improve it. Otherwise, it would be great it the test could be
> > integrated, so that issue #4405 can receive some test coverage.
> Please use text/plain MIME type. This makes review easier. Usually
> *.txt extesion achieves this.
> I think the patch is correct *if* we agree that "Merge the same change
> twice" should raise a conflict. Prior discussion in this thread
> indicates that in present svn that scenario is explicitly decided not to
> be a conflict. Therefore, I am not going to commit this patch.
> I think the best thing to do is to attach it to the issue tracker on the
> issue tracking Julian's suggestion of a "strict conflicts" mode. That
> way, we can apply the patch once we start implementing the "strict"
> mode. (We tend not to change our svntest/*.py interfaces that much, so
> I wouldn't be concerned about bitrot.)
> So, in summary: thanks for the patch, I think it's correct, but I'm not
> going to apply it for the reasons above.
> Does that make sense?

Thank you for the response Daniel. I agree with your reasoning and will be
satisfied with a "strict conflicts" mode in subversion. That's fine for me.

I will attempt to improve the patch based on Johan's and your feedback, and
attach it to the issue-tracker sometime the next few days.

Best regards,
Received on 2013-08-10 21:30:53 CEST

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