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

RE: merge conflict terms

From: Gavin Lambert <colnet_at_mirality.co.nz>
Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2015 20:26:56 -0800 (PST)

On 9/12/2014 08:17, Stefan Küng quoth:
> On 08.12.2014 14:11, Niemann, Hartmut wrote:
>> Hello!
>> As a sequel to this discussion:
>> I had to merge between to folders inside my working copy.
>> In such a setup there is nothing like "choose local" and "choose repository".
>> I was confused, but as far as I can tell I guessed right...
>> When I merge form /030_branches/my_workingbranch
>> to /040_trunk inside my working copy, what does "repository" mean? Which is which?
>> Would "present" and "incoming" or "destination" and "source" be more appropriate words?
> The terms "local" and "repository" are the same as the svn client uses,
> so at least that's an advantage: users are familiar with it (at least
> those who use multiple svn clients, and those reading the svn docs).
> But I'm open to better terms if there are any. Your suggestions are not
> bad, but at least I can't tell which is which. Tell me if I'm right or
> wrong:
> "present" : working copy file (with possible local mods)
> "incoming" : file from the repository, containing the merge changes
> "destination" : same as "present"
> "source" : same as "incoming"
> Also, there's another problem:
> if a merge that spans over multiple revisions is done, the first
> revisions might not cause a conflict but leave the wc file modified
> (i.e., that part of the merge is already done). Now if further revisions
> cause a merge conflict, there are local modifications already but
> they're not really local but the successful merges. So it gets even more
> complicated: "local" then means the already merged parts too.
> So, who else has an opinion on what terms we should use?

Of those, "local" and "incoming" seem like the most unambiguous to me, assuming that the incoming can sometimes not be the repository.

Having said that, as far as I was aware TSVN (and SVN itself) do not have a feature to merge WC-to-WC -- the incoming must always be a repository revision or revision range, so Hartmut couldn't be doing what he says he's doing. Or have I missed something?

(On a completely unrelated note, it appears that the Date sort order at http://tortoisesvn.tigris.org/ds/postMessage.do?dsForumId=4061 is broken. Not sure who needs to be notified to sort that out.)


To unsubscribe from this discussion, e-mail: [users-unsubscribe_at_tortoisesvn.tigris.org].
Received on 2015-01-14 05:27:03 CET

This is an archived mail posted to the TortoiseSVN Users mailing list.

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