Re: Merge bug -- svn:keywords and conflict resolution

On Mar 29, 2012, at 1:24 , Varnau, Steve (Seaquest R&D) wrote:

> I did not get any responses on this bug report, neither confirming nor denying.

We're an open community, as you know. If something is neither confirmed nor
denied, then nothing happened. :-)

> So I guess the next step is to file an issue?
>
> -Steve
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Varnau, Steve (Seaquest R&D)
[...]
>> ### Here's the bug -- why do both sides of conflict show same content?
>> cat keyfile
>> <<<<<<< .working
>> $Date: 2012-03-26 10:09:19 -0700 (Mon, 26 Mar 2012) $ $Revision: 5 $
>> =======
>> $Date: 2012-03-26 10:09:19 -0700 (Mon, 26 Mar 2012) $ $Revision: 5 $
>>>>>>>>> .merge-right.r6
>> some changes
>> $Id$
>>

FWIW, with 1.6.17 the working file has different content, including a visible
conflict in the first line.

[[[
$ cat keyfile
<<<<<<< .working
$Date: 2012-03-29 09:15:48 +0200 (Thu, 29 Mar 2012) $ $Revision: 5 $
=======
$Date: 2012-03-29 09:15:46 +0200 (Thu, 29 Mar 2012) $ $Revision: 4 $
>>>>>>> .merge-right.r6
 some changes
$Id: keyfile 5 2012-03-29 07:15:48Z steve $
]]]

The other files are the same as with 1.7.

In view of the incoming change to the svn:keywords property, from "Date
Revision" to "Id", this conflict (even in 1.6) doesn't make much sense to me.

After the merge, with svn:keywords set to "Id", if we were to re-apply the
keyword translation, the conflict in the first line wouldn't exist. In the working
copy and in^/trunk_at_6, the first line is simply "$Date$ $Revision$",
untranslated.

I'm not sure why the first line remains expanded despite the change to
svn:keywords. So, yes, please file an issue.

Regards,
Steve Butler
Received on 2012-03-29 09:36:09 CEST