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

Re: We're still going on 'tree conflict' issue

From: Stefan Sperling <stsp_at_elego.de>
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2009 01:15:06 +0100

On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 06:28:40PM -0500, Paul Hammant wrote:
> Hey folks,
>
> Question: Should svn merge ever fail within the first few seconds of
> what should be two days of three-way merge arbitration ?
>
> How we discovered this :
>
> We used a self-built svn from branches/1.6.x today (@39407).

1.6.x is known to have this problem.
What happens with branches/1.6.x-r38000 instead of branches/1.6.x?

Thanks,
Stefan

> We double checked via ldd that it is statically linked.
>
> > cd branch
> > path/to/svn merge -r10182:11149 https://svn/repo/trunk/foo .
> svn: Attempt to add tree conflict that already exists at 'foo/src/
> something'
> svn: Error reading spooled REPORT request response
> > path/to/svn st
> C foo/src/something
> > local edit, incoming delete upon merge
>
> It is odd to us that Subversion does not go past this merge-conflict.
> Marking it in some way, sure we can work with conflicts later. Exit of
> the executable is something that's leaving us incredibly nervous.
>
> Svn 1.6.4 is the same, FYI.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> - Paul
>
> ------------------------------------------------------
> http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=1065&dsMessageId=2396235
>
> To unsubscribe from this discussion, e-mail: [users-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org].

------------------------------------------------------
http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=1065&dsMessageId=2396239

To unsubscribe from this discussion, e-mail: [users-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org].
Received on 2009-09-18 02:15:58 CEST

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

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