On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 11:41:47PM +0100, Johan Corveleyn wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 12:20 PM, Stefan Sperling <stsp_at_elego.de> wrote:
> > Hi,
> > Another update on the new conflict resolver:
> > We have 36 conflict resolver tests, all of which PASS.
> > I have updated the wiki page about conflict tests accordingly:
> > https://wiki.apache.org/subversion/TreeConflictTests
> > The 36 tests we have still do not cover much of the overall problem space.
> > However, our tests cover the existing conflict options. I guess we will be
> > expanding our set of tests whenever new options get added and user-reported
> > bugs get fixed. I don't see much value in adding additional regression tests
> > at this point. Rather, I think we need to get the resolver out into the hands
> > of users to see if it meets their expectations during day-to-day operation.
> > Apart from tests, there are other important points marked with [X] in:
> > https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/subversion/trunk/notes/meetings/berlin-16-minutes
> > Among those, only one is left unresolved:
> > - Markup in test descriptions (for GUI clients). (Suggested by ivan)
> > Since I am not a GUI developer I will leave this task to somebody else who
> > is more competent in that area. Of course, I would be able to support such
> > an effort and help with making design decisions and getting an implementation
> > worked out.
> > Other unresolved items mentioned in this file are:
> > - Recommended resolution option(s)
> > (includes support for using the conflict resolver with --non-interactive)
> > - Working copy operations are not atomic
> > - Resolution scripts (aka custom user-defined resolution options)
> > - Issue with multirange merge
> > I myself do not plan to address these items for the 1.10.0 release.
> > I would be fine with releasing the current implementation as 1.10.0 and to
> > fix bugs and add more resolution options during the 1.10.x release series.
> > The current feature set already provides huge improvements over 1.9.
> > Further improvements, which require API changes, can be postponed to 1.11.
> > I would like to get an 1.10.0 alpha1 released in February. Unless I hear
> > objections I will start rolling this alpha release from trunk and call a
> > vote on it soon.
> That's great news, Stefan, and I bow to your perseverance on this. Great work!
Funding I got from VisualSVN and elego helped a lot in making this happen.
> I'm wondering if we should also create a table / documentation listing
> the supported conflict options, and what they do. Or is this more or
> less the same as the TreeConflictTests table, since as you said it
> covers the existing conflict resolution options?
For our own purposes the table in the wiki is fine. I will create another
similar table for our 1.10 release notes. I hope I can come up with a table
that is easier for end users to understand than what we have in the wiki.
Received on 2017-01-25 11:29:51 CET