On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 12:20:56PM +0200, Andreas Krey wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Aug 2011 20:46:51 +0000, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> ...
> > > Actually I think these are better handled by throwing away the merge
> > > results and doing the renames/removes on the respective branches, then
> > > redo the merge.
> >
> > The above is only for "add vs. add" situations.
> > Scenarios involving renames are different.
>
> I meant when I get an add/add conflict on unrelated directories
> (or files), I'd undo the merge, rename one of the directories in the
> respective branch and retry the merge.
OK. In this case it should auto-resolve the conflict (it does not as
of now, of course, but it will eventually).
> Offhand, I wouldn't know where
> subversion would place the unrelated versions of the directories in the
> sandbox, nor how I could tell it that I want one of those kept in the
> merge result (with same or different name).
We cannot store the tree anywhere right now.
But we can create some space in the new meta-data store.
> > > I tend to feel uneasy in these interactive conflict resolutions.
> >
> > What makes you feel uneasy about it?
>
> I'm used to manual merges, which means its always (p) with me. Which
> unfortunately does not work quite well with properties, as far I
> remember.
Can you provide details? What doesn't work, exactly?
Is there already an issue filed for this problem?
> (And (e) gives me 'EDITOR not set' even though it is offered.)
Hmmm... does it not ask for an editor command to run?
That's the least it could do.
> One thing that would be helpful is (!): Run a shell.
I agree that would be nice.
However, right now, svn opens the prompt while the TCP connection
to the server is still open.
We need to change this so that svn first downloads all required data,
and then runs the interactive prompt
(bug: http://subversion.tigris.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3846).
Then we have all time in the world and might as well spawn a shell.
> > Note that, ideally, this menu could be recalled offline, after the
> > merge/update has completed with all conflicts postponed.
> > So you'd have all the time in the world to figure out your answer,
> > if that's what worrying you.
>
> The problem is more like it is another tool which you hopefully never
> need, yet need to know well if you do.
It's not going to be mandatory. It will be an optional helper,
just like the current interactive conflict resolution prompt.
Received on 2011-08-22 12:50:36 CEST