> -----Original Message-----
> From: stsp_at_apache.org [mailto:stsp_at_apache.org]
> Sent: dinsdag 23 juni 2015 13:18
> To: commits_at_subversion.apache.org
> Subject: svn commit: r1687029 -
> Author: stsp
> Date: Tue Jun 23 11:18:15 2015
> New Revision: 1687029
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/r1687029
> Add a regression test for issue #4582, "reintegrate complains about missing
> ranges from node unrelated to branch"
> * subversion/tests/cmdline/mergeinfo_tests.py
> (no_mergeinfo_on_tree_conflict_victim, test_list): New test.
> Modified: subversion/trunk/subversion/tests/cmdline/mergeinfo_tests.py
> --- subversion/trunk/subversion/tests/cmdline/mergeinfo_tests.py (original)
> +++ subversion/trunk/subversion/tests/cmdline/mergeinfo_tests.py Tue Jun 23
> 11:18:15 2015
> @@ -786,6 +786,166 @@ def mergeinfo_local_move(sbox):
> 'mergeinfo', sbox.repo_url + '/A',
> +def no_mergeinfo_on_tree_conflict_victim(sbox):
> + "do not record mergeinfo on tree conflict victims"
> + sbox.build()
I don't think this label accurately describes the intended case of this test.
Personally I think it is better to add mergeinfo on the TC-victim then to *add* non-inherital mergeinfo to both the direct ancestor *and* inheritable mergeinfo to *all* siblings, which is usually the only alternative. ("The least nodes with mergeinfo, the better")
The label would say me that this is a problem we are checking, while you are really checking to see if a reintegrate would work.... Or at least that is what the log message says.
We should try to avoid mixing wanted/expected behavior ("reintegrate merge doesn't work") with the implementation details ("unexpected svn:mergeinfo") here.
If reintegrate is really the problem, I'm missing the reasoning why the test is added to mergeinfo_tests.py, as there is also a merge_reintegrate_tests.py.
Received on 2015-06-23 13:35:29 CEST