On Tue, Sep 07, 2010 at 04:47:38PM +0300, Vadim wrote:
> Thanks,
>
> After you've pointed out the difficulties in recognizing if changesets are
> indeed equal
> it seems natural that SVN behaves as it does.
> The point regarding cyclic branches is valid. We only keep several of those
> as a
> convenience to avoid checking out new branches. I'll try to get rid of that
> practice.
>
> > The only tool I know of which I've been told can do cyclic merging without
> > much help from the user is clear case (though I have my doubts, maybe it
> > just has a good UI for this use case?). If you know of any others, please
> > let me know.
> >
> >
> I'm not aware of such tools. So far I had the best merging experience with
> Git (which handles the described case without any difficulty).
Yes, it does. That's because git has better automatic conflict resolution
than Subversion does right now. There's no reason Subversion can't get
up to par, but it requires some architectural redesign that's already
starting to happen under the covers in the upcoming 1.7 release.
But note that the described case (two added files which are equal) is
pretty easy to handle. There are many cases in which git will also signal
spurious conflicts.
I once talked with developers of another project (Mercurial) about this
problem, and the result of that discussion was more or less that real
semantic merging is still a research topic and not feasible to implement.
So users will simply have to live with spurious merge conflicts in some cases.
Stefan
Received on 2010-09-07 16:12:25 CEST