On 10/10/2016 6:12 PM, Ivan Zhakov wrote:
> On 10 October 2016 at 17:53, Stefan <luke1410_at_posteo.de> wrote:
>> 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
>>
>> ]]]
>>
> It seems this patch breaks interactive conflict resolve:
> With trunk I get the following to 'svn resolve' on binary file:
> [[[
> Merge conflict discovered in binary file 'A_COPY\theta'.
> Select: (p) postpone,
> (r) accept binary file as it appears in the working copy,
> (tf) accept incoming version of binary file: h
>
> (p) - skip this conflict and leave it unresolved [postpone]
> (tf) - accept incoming version of binary file [theirs-full]
> (r) - accept binary file as it appears in the working copy [working]
> (q) - postpone all remaining conflicts
> ]]]
>
> But with patch I get the following:
> [[[
> Merge conflict discovered in binary file 'A_COPY\theta'.
> Select: (p) postpone,
> (r) accept binary file as it appears in the working copy,
> (tf) accept incoming version of binary file: h
>
> (p) - skip this conflict and leave it unresolved [postpone]
> (tf) - accept incoming version of binary file [theirs-full]
> (mf) - accept binary file as it appears in the working copy [mine-full]
> (r) - accept binary file as it appears in the working copy [working]
> (q) - postpone all remaining conflicts
> ]]]
>
> I think it's confusing and we should not offer the same option twice.
>
Completely agreed. The display of the option in the UI shouldn't be like
that. Certainly an oversight on my side. Will revise the patch and come
up with a different/better approach tomorrow.
Regards,
Stefan
Received on 2016-10-10 23:39:43 CEST