On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 12:14 PM, Stefan Sperling <stsp_at_elego.de> wrote:
> I have seen several instances of proposals in our STATUS file where I
> cannot merge without text conflicts because I am using a trunk client.
> I suppose most of us use 1.9.x clients to do such merges, because
> otherwise there would be a lot more backport branches in STATUS when
> nominations get added, and before I run into such a conflict.
> This is probably due to the stricter text conflict checks added in r1731699.
> If so, are we really sure that we want to make the new behaviour the default?
> I can imagine that in organizations with a diverse SVN client install base
> this change will cause a lot of misunderstandings and confusion among users.
> And with the conflict resolver we are trying to make tree conflicts less
> painful. Now, at the same time text conflicts have become a lot more painful
> than they used to be. I don't think this is going to be a good sell.
I agree. These conflicts seem unnecessary and that will hurt SVN's usability.
Now, r1731699  also apparently fixed a real issue, reported by a
user long ago. So imho the questions are:
* Was that really an issue, or more a case of "difference of opinion
on possible behaviour for an edge case"?
* If it was an issue, is there another way to fix it, or to improve
the fix, so it doesn't introduce these unnecessary conflicts.
On IRC yesterday Bert said:
"There should be ways to improve this further... and if this becomes a
real problem we should revert the change. I would like to see that
original case fixed, but I not at all costs."
So, can we discuss this further to find a good solution? How to proceed?
Received on 2017-05-11 00:43:35 CEST