Julian Foad <julianfoad_at_apache.org> writes:
> Julian Foad wrote:
>> The bug seems to be that 'svn patch' fails to apply any patch of
>> this form, that tries to change a property value from empty to
>> non-empty.
>
> I committed a test for this in http://svn.apache.org/r1834628
I'm confused, you are treating as '' special? Suppose an existing
property P has value 'foo'. Should a patch that adds P with value 'bar'
simply merge and change the existing 'foo' to 'bar'? I think a conflict
is the correct outcome. You seem to be saying that if 'foo' is '' then
the conflict should not occur.
Given an existing property P with value 'foo' a patch that adds P with
value 'foo' would apply cleanly, it's an "already applied" patch. A
patch that modifes P from 'foo' to 'bar' would also apply cleanly, but
this latter patch would conflict if P does not exist.
I think the original question here is whether svn:executable should be
special and whether the add of svn:executable with value V1 should merge
with an existing svn:executable with a different value V2 and
automatically resolve to '*'. If it should merge, should there be any
restrictions? Should V1='foo' and V2='bar' resolve to '*'? Or only if
one of V1, V2 is '' and the other is '*'? Or something else?
I think a conflict is the right answer and there is no bug. I think
your new test is wrong.
--
Philip
Received on 2018-06-28 20:04:05 CEST