On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 09:52:15AM -0500, Paul Hammant wrote:
> > What we've learned though is that there are tree conflicts all over
> > the place. Thus, we're going to try some other strategy & report
> > back.
> As suggested earlier, svn-1.6.x-latest is better at communicating
> which file is the actual tree conflict. Like so
> G foo/Bar
> svn: Attempt to add tree conflict that already exists at apple/
> svn: Error reading spooled REPORT request response
> When trying to 'resolved' that one, and optimistically resume the
> merge, we're discovering that svn had made multiple items marked as
> "! C", not just the first one.
Can you please provide more of the actual output you are seeing?
> Could svn be changed to report all of the items that are tree
> conflicts, not just the first one (or not just a single one) ?
It should report all of them, during update, merge, and status.
Have you run 'svn status' on the working copy?
It should list all tree conflicts. If you want help with analysing
the conflicts which are happening, please post the entire output
of merges you are running, with the output of 'svn status -v' before
and after any merges.
> I appreciate that resuming a merge is somewhat non-standard too, but
> we have no choice here if we're trying to get past this issue.
Note that any existing tree-conflict victim will be skipped by a
subsequent merge. svn assumes it's not safe to do anything to them.
You should probably resolve all tree conflicts before running another merge.
> What we'd really love is the ability to respond via std-in with a "P"
> for pend, in respect of tree conflicts, and deal with them after the
> merge invocation.
To unsubscribe from this discussion, e-mail: [users-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org].
Received on 2009-09-16 17:15:32 CEST