Filed http://subversion.tigris.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4155
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Daniel Shahaf [mailto:d.s_at_daniel.shahaf.name]
> Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2012 4:51 AM
> To: Stephen Butler
> Cc: Varnau, Steve (Seaquest R&D); users_at_subversion.apache.org; Brackett,
> Faye
> Subject: Re: Merge bug -- svn:keywords and conflict resolution
>
> Stephen Butler wrote on Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 09:35:27 +0200:
> >
> >
> > 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. :-)
> >
>
> I almost missed the rest of your reply, Stephen. (I've left it quoted
> below; tldr: "Yes, please file an issue" :-) )
>
> > > 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 2012-03-30 17:58:48 CEST