On Feb 12, 2009, at 10:17 PM, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> We decided not to treat obstructions as tree conflicts.
> See issue #3161 for details:
Too bad. I really agree with the tree-conflict documentation's remark
on merge's skipping behavior:
"Skipping obstructed items during merge is no longer acceptable
behaviour, since users might not be aware of obstructions that were
skipped when they commit the result of a merge."
I find this failure rather insidious, as unless the developer is
attentive, they might think the merge actually worked. Compiles and
tests in the working copy will all work correctly, as the files got
unversioned but are still prevent. I find developers to not always be
attentive, so it would be nice if the tool would help to prevent this
>> I'll note that this would be a lot less irritating if issue #3101 was
>> fixed. It seems pretty obvious that an unmodified add-with-history
>> should be completely removed by an svn revert. If that were fixed,
>> that merge sometimes "skips" files would be a lot less common...
>> Are either of these in the plans for 1.6 final?
> Yes, I think you really want issue #3101 fixed. It has not much
> to do with tree conflicts. It really is about whether an obstruction
> should be created during 'svn revert' of a locally added file with
Yes, I do want that fixed. :) Fixing it would get rid of probably 95%
real life merge obstructions, and thus make fixing merge's "skip" mis-
behavior less important.
Anyhow, thank you for the info.
To unsubscribe from this discussion, e-mail: [users-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org].
Received on 2009-02-13 20:17:04 CET