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

[PATCH] Resolve issue #4647 on trunk

From: Stefan <luke1410_at_posteo.de>
Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 17:53:11 +0200

On 8/28/2016 11:32 PM, Bert Huijben wrote:
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Daniel Shahaf [mailto:d.s_at_daniel.shahaf.name]
>> Sent: zondag 28 augustus 2016 20:23
>> To: Stefan <luke1410_at_posteo.de>
>> Cc: dev_at_subversion.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix a conflict resolution issue related to binary files (patch
>> v4)
>>
>> Stefan wrote on Sun, Aug 28, 2016 at 13:31:39 +0200:
>>> The regression test was tested against 1.9.4, 1.9.x and trunk r1743999.
>>>
>>> I also tried to run the test against 1.8.16 but there it fails (didn't
>>> investigate in detail).
>>> Trunk r1758069 caused some build issues on my machine. Therefore I
>>> couldn't validate/check the patch against the latest trunk (maybe it's
>>> just some local issue with my build machine rather than some actual
>>> problem on trunk - didn't look into that yet).
>> For future reference, you might have tried building trunk_at_HEAD after
>> locally reverting r1758069; i.e.:
>>
>> svn up
>> svn merge -c -r1758069
>> <apply patch>
>> make check
>>
>> Stefan wrote on Sun, Aug 28, 2016 at 18:33:55 +0200:
>>> Got approved by Bert.
>>>
>> (Thanks for stating so on the thread.)
>>
>>> Separated the repro test from the actual fix in order to have the
>>> possibility to selectively only backport the regression test to the 1.8
>>> branch.
>> Good call, but the fix and the "remove XFail markers" (r1758129 and
>> r1758130) should have been done in a single revision: they _are_
>> a single logical change. That would also avoid breaking 'make check'
>> (at r1758129 'make check' exits non-zero because of the XPASS).
> I do this the same way sometimes, when I want to use the separate revision for backporting... But usually I commit things close enough that nobody notices the bot results ;-)
> (While the initial XFail addition is still running, you can commit the two follow ups, and the buildbots collapses all the changes to a single build)
>
> I just committed the followup patch posted in another thread to unbreak the bots for the night...
>
> Bert

Attached is a patch which should resolve the test case you added, Bert.
Anybody feels like approving it? Or is there something I should
improve/change?

[[[

Add support for the svn_client_conflict_option_working_text resolution for
binary file conflicts.

* subversion/libsvn_client/conflicts.c
  (): Add svn_client_conflict_option_working_text to binary_conflict_options

* subversion/tests/cmdline/resolve_tests.py
  (automatic_binary_conflict_resolution): Remove XFail marker

]]]

Regards,
Stefan

Received on 2016-10-10 17:53:27 CEST

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