On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 12:14:06PM +0200, Michael Hüttermann wrote:
> Hello,
>
> nailing down some tree conflicts show that there are no differences at all
> comparing merged versions. One example is a file that has the same name,
> path and content, but was removed/added meanwhile, and Subversion lost the
> tracking that it is exactly the same file than before. Is there a tool or
> command to automatically resolve such sort of tree conflicts?
Hi Michael,
Subversion performs additions and deletions as explicit operations
that are independent of file content. If you don't want to break
the line of history of a file you should not be replacing it.
If a replacement happens accidentally and this causes tree conflicts
during merges, I'd recommend to revert the replacement before
committing the merge result. This way the replacement won't propagate
further and will eventually stop causing trouble. I cannot give you more
detailed advice without more information about the exact tree conflict
cases you've been looking at.
I'd recommend to take a look at trumerge: http://trumerge.open.collab.net
It is an add-on to Subversion that detects renames by scanning
the revision log and runs subtree merges on renamed files (as
you would usually do manually to merge changes between branches
with diverging tree structure).
Note also that work is being done to make Subversion resolve some
tree conflicts automatically and to provide interactive guidance when
resolving tree conflicts in general. This will eventually make it much
easier to deal with fallout from accidental replacments as well.
Some improvements will be visible in Subversion 1.8 when it is released.
Further improvements are planned for later releases. For details, see
http://www.elegosoft.com/files/Downloads/Subversion_Day_2012/svn-day-berlin-2012_sperling_moves-and-renames-in-1-8.pdf
(This slide set presents my personal view which is not necessarily shared
by the entire development community. There is general agreement that we
need to improve Subversion in this area but some details of how we're
going to do it are still being discussed.)
Received on 2012-08-20 12:49:06 CEST