On 17.04.2016 14:20, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 17, 2016 at 01:30:26PM +0200, Branko Čibej wrote:
>> On 17.04.2016 18:54, Stefan Fuhrmann wrote:
>>> stsp wrote:
>>>
>>>> * STATUS: r1721285 nomination needs a backport branch
>>> This is what I get:
>>>
>>> $ svn --version
>>> svn, version 1.7.9 (r1462340)
>>> compiled Oct 15 2013, 12:40:34
>>> ...
>>>
>>> $ svn merge -c1721285 ^/subversion/trunk .
>>> --- Merging r1721285 into '.':
>>> U subversion/libsvn_fs_fs/caching.c
>>> --- Recording mergeinfo for merge of r1721285 into '.':
>>> U .
>>>
>>> Maybe a typo on your part?
>>
>> Worksforme with 1.9.3 on the 1.9.x branch.
>>
>> -- Brane
> Funny. It works with 1.9.x indeed.
>
> Now try the same with a trunk client.
> Is this a regression? Or a new feature?
>
> $ svn merge -cr1721285 ^/subversion/trunk
> --- Merging r1721285 into '.':
> C subversion/libsvn_fs_fs/caching.c
> --- Recording mergeinfo for merge of r1721285 into '.':
> U .
> Summary of conflicts:
> Text conflicts: 1
> Conflict discovered in file 'subversion/libsvn_fs_fs/caching.c'.
> Select: (p) postpone, (df) show diff, (e) edit file, (m) merge,
> (mc) my side of conflict, (tc) their side of conflict,
> (s) show all options: q
> Summary of conflicts:
> Text conflicts: 1
> $ svn --version
> svn, version 1.10.0-dev (under development)
> compiled Apr 15 2016, 10:34:49 on x86_64-unknown-openbsd5.9
So what's the actual conflict? Paste it here, then we can decide if it's
a bug or a feature. :)
-- Brane
Received on 2016-04-17 14:29:58 CEST