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

Re: Shelve & checkpoint - next steps

From: Julian Foad <julianfoad_at_apache.org>
Date: Sat, 19 May 2018 12:05:19 +0100

Julian Foad wrote on 2018-05-14:
> I propose now switching completely from 'patch' storage to storing whole
> files, and storing both the base and the working version of each shelved
> file.

Done in http://svn.apache.org/r1831884 . Some details follow.

> - 'mkdir', 'rmdir'


> - copy and move


> - properties with 'binary' content values
> - files not recognized as 'binary' but that don't diff/patch nicely

Done. (It uses the same code path as in 'update' and 'merge' so whatever exactly it does should be good enough.)

> - 3-way merge


> - conflict handling like in 'svn update' and 'svn merge'

Partly done, mostly TODO. Tree conflicts are not detected.

> - ... run 'diff' and pipe the result into 'patch' ..., for now

When I tried that, I ran into a bug in our 'diff' code when using it that way, and moved on to directly invoking 3-way merge at a low level (per file).

- Julian
Received on 2018-05-19 13:05:23 CEST

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

This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.