On 09.05.2017 12:14, Stefan Sperling 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'm strongly against producing additional text conflicts.
My feeling is that 1.9 (1.8?) already produces more of
those than prior releases did and it annoys me.
If we missed a reasonable corner case - by all means
get that fixed. But don't break the reasonably well
working cases.
-- Stefan^2.
Received on 2017-05-13 22:38:42 CEST