On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 9:30 PM, Fredrik Orderud <forderud_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.
>
Received on 2013-08-11 00:22:22 CEST