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

Re: Getting merge to ignore a directory in source and destination branch for a merge (tree conflict)

From: Paul Hammant <paul_at_hammant.org>
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2009 09:36:30 -0500

We're not expecting the Svn team to consume this patch as is.

It is just that we are likely to rely on this for our long-delayed
merge from trunk to branch.

There are two parts to this - better debugging output for a subset of
tree-conflict situations and not halting early if it encounters this
specific tree-conflict situation.

Great work Jon (and Addison and Tim and others).


- Paul

On Sep 23, 2009, at 9:15 AM, Jonathan wrote:

> I'm working with paul. Here is a patch of what we hacked svn 1.6.x
> with.
> The difference is we are effectively undoing this change: http://svn.collab.net/viewvc/svn/trunk/subversion/libsvn_wc/tree_conflicts.c?r1=34854&r2=34860
> In our patch, when you have an existing tree conflict, and you try
> to add another tree conflict on top of it, there will be a verbose
> warning of the new and existing conflicts, but it will not return.
> The merge continues.
> We reviewed the files affected by this double tree-conflict merge
> and it turned out that almost all of them resulted in a net delete.
> (In the HEAD version we're merging to they were deleted).
> Please take a look at the patch, if you think it would help you
> diagnose what we're doing. Do you folks see any unintentional side
> affects this might cause?
> <
> tree_conflicts_do_not_abort_just_report_double_tree_conflict_errors.patch
> >


To unsubscribe from this discussion, e-mail: [users-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org].
Received on 2009-09-23 16:37:35 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.