You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@subversion.apache.org by Jens Seidel <je...@users.sourceforge.net> on 2006/06/30 14:47:02 UTC
svn status doesn't show a conflict
Hi all,
I merged a file multiple time where the first merge adds this file. I noticed
that there is a conflict in this file which is not indicated by svn status:
$ svn status configure.ac
A + configure.ac
Is there a valid status flag for this situation at all?
I expected "C + " or something similar.
$ ls -l configure.ac*
-rw-r--r-- 1 jens users 4049 Jun 30 16:25 configure.ac
-rw-r--r-- 1 jens users 4091 Jun 30 15:59 configure.ac.merge-links.r209
-rw-r--r-- 1 jens users 4206 Jun 30 15:59 configure.ac.merge-rechts.r210
-rw-r--r-- 1 jens users 3920 Jun 30 15:59 configure.ac.working
$ svn resolved configure.ac
Resolved conflicted state of 'configure.ac'
$ svn resolved configure.ac
$ svn status configure.ac
A + configure.ac
I'm not sure whether I'm able to reproduce this, but I could try if you want.
My subversion version is 1.3.0 (r17949).
Is this problem already known?
Please CC: me.
Jens
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: svn status doesn't show a conflict
Posted by Garrett Rooney <ro...@electricjellyfish.net>.
On 7/3/06, Erik Huelsmann <eh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 7/3/06, Garrett Rooney <ro...@electricjellyfish.net> wrote:
> > On 7/3/06, Garrett Rooney <ro...@electricjellyfish.net> wrote:
> > > On 7/3/06, Erik Huelsmann <eh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > My thoughts would be that C should prevail, yes.
> > >
> > > Ok, works for me. I've got a patch here with a fix + test that I'm
> > > ready to commit, just waiting for the tests to finish running, then
> > > I'll check it in.
> >
> > Committed in r20382. Erik, if you could take a look I'd appreciate it.
>
> Looks good. Thanks for the prompt response. (Proposing for backport?)
Sure, why not. Will propose soon.
-garrett
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: svn status doesn't show a conflict
Posted by Erik Huelsmann <eh...@gmail.com>.
On 7/3/06, Garrett Rooney <ro...@electricjellyfish.net> wrote:
> On 7/3/06, Garrett Rooney <ro...@electricjellyfish.net> wrote:
> > On 7/3/06, Erik Huelsmann <eh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > My thoughts would be that C should prevail, yes.
> >
> > Ok, works for me. I've got a patch here with a fix + test that I'm
> > ready to commit, just waiting for the tests to finish running, then
> > I'll check it in.
>
> Committed in r20382. Erik, if you could take a look I'd appreciate it.
Looks good. Thanks for the prompt response. (Proposing for backport?)
bye,
Erik.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: svn status doesn't show a conflict
Posted by Garrett Rooney <ro...@electricjellyfish.net>.
On 7/3/06, Garrett Rooney <ro...@electricjellyfish.net> wrote:
> On 7/3/06, Erik Huelsmann <eh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > My thoughts would be that C should prevail, yes.
>
> Ok, works for me. I've got a patch here with a fix + test that I'm
> ready to commit, just waiting for the tests to finish running, then
> I'll check it in.
Committed in r20382. Erik, if you could take a look I'd appreciate it.
-garrett
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: svn status doesn't show a conflict
Posted by Garrett Rooney <ro...@electricjellyfish.net>.
On 7/3/06, Erik Huelsmann <eh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> My thoughts would be that C should prevail, yes.
Ok, works for me. I've got a patch here with a fix + test that I'm
ready to commit, just waiting for the tests to finish running, then
I'll check it in.
-garrett
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: svn status doesn't show a conflict
Posted by Erik Huelsmann <eh...@gmail.com>.
On 7/3/06, Garrett Rooney <ro...@electricjellyfish.net> wrote:
> On 7/3/06, Jens Seidel <je...@users.sf.net> wrote:
> > Hi Erik,
> >
> > On Sun, Jul 02, 2006 at 11:35:38AM +0200, Erik Huelsmann wrote:
> > > On 6/30/06, Jens Seidel <je...@users.sf.net> wrote:
> > > >I merged a file multiple time where the first merge adds this file. I
> > > >noticed
> > > >that there is a conflict in this file which is not indicated by svn status:
> > > >
> > > >Is there a valid status flag for this situation at all?
> > > >I expected "C + " or something similar.
> > > >
> > > >Is this problem already known?
> > >
> > > No, this problem is new. If you could create a reproduction recipe I
> > > would be most gratefull!
> >
> > OK, it was not very difficult to reproduce it. I also noticed that subversion
> > is really aware of this conflict, it's just not possible to display it in the
> > svn status output.
>
> A quick look at 'assemble_status' in libsvn_wc/status.c indicates that
> we set our text status to 'conflict', then proceed to overwrite it
> with added. Perhaps 'conflict' should win? That wouldn't pass along
> the + though, IIUC...
My thoughts would be that C should prevail, yes.
bye,
Erik.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: svn status doesn't show a conflict
Posted by Garrett Rooney <ro...@electricjellyfish.net>.
On 7/3/06, Jens Seidel <je...@users.sf.net> wrote:
> Hi Erik,
>
> On Sun, Jul 02, 2006 at 11:35:38AM +0200, Erik Huelsmann wrote:
> > On 6/30/06, Jens Seidel <je...@users.sf.net> wrote:
> > >I merged a file multiple time where the first merge adds this file. I
> > >noticed
> > >that there is a conflict in this file which is not indicated by svn status:
> > >
> > >Is there a valid status flag for this situation at all?
> > >I expected "C + " or something similar.
> > >
> > >Is this problem already known?
> >
> > No, this problem is new. If you could create a reproduction recipe I
> > would be most gratefull!
>
> OK, it was not very difficult to reproduce it. I also noticed that subversion
> is really aware of this conflict, it's just not possible to display it in the
> svn status output.
A quick look at 'assemble_status' in libsvn_wc/status.c indicates that
we set our text status to 'conflict', then proceed to overwrite it
with added. Perhaps 'conflict' should win? That wouldn't pass along
the + though, IIUC...
-garrett
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: svn status doesn't show a conflict
Posted by Jens Seidel <je...@users.sourceforge.net>.
Hi Erik,
On Sun, Jul 02, 2006 at 11:35:38AM +0200, Erik Huelsmann wrote:
> On 6/30/06, Jens Seidel <je...@users.sf.net> wrote:
> >I merged a file multiple time where the first merge adds this file. I
> >noticed
> >that there is a conflict in this file which is not indicated by svn status:
> >
> >Is there a valid status flag for this situation at all?
> >I expected "C + " or something similar.
> >
> >Is this problem already known?
>
> No, this problem is new. If you could create a reproduction recipe I
> would be most gratefull!
OK, it was not very difficult to reproduce it. I also noticed that subversion
is really aware of this conflict, it's just not possible to display it in the
svn status output.
$ cd /tmp
$ svnadmin create repos
$ svn mkdir -m"created branch/" file:///tmp/repos/branch
Committed revision 1.
$ svn mkdir -m"created trunk/" file:///tmp/repos/trunk
Committed revision 2.
$ svn co file://$(pwd)/repos wc
A wc/trunk
A wc/branch
Checked out revision 2.
$ cd wc/branch/
$ echo "line 1
> line 2
> line 3" > file
$ svn add file
A file
$ svn ci -m"Added file" file
Adding file
Transmitting file data .
Committed revision 3.
$ echo "line 1
> line 3" > file
$ svn ci -m"Removed line 2" file
Sending file
Transmitting file data .
Committed revision 4.
$ echo "line 1
> line 2" > file
$ svn ci -m"Fixed line numbering" file
Sending file
Transmitting file data .
Committed revision 5.
# Now let's create the conflict
$ cd ../trunk/
$ svn merge -r 2:3 file:///tmp/repos/branch
A file
$ svn merge -r 4:5 file:///tmp/repos/branch
C file
It's easy to not notice this typo once you merge large subtrees.
$ svn status
? file.merge-left.r4
? file.merge-right.r5
? file.working
A + file
$ cat file
line 1
<<<<<<< .working
line 2
line 3
=======
line 2
>>>>>>> .merge-right.r5
$ svn ci -m"file with conflict" file
svn: Commit failed (details follow):
svn: Aborting commit: '/tmp/wc/trunk/file' remains in conflict
Again: Please CC: me.
Jens
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: svn status doesn't show a conflict
Posted by Erik Huelsmann <eh...@gmail.com>.
On 6/30/06, Jens Seidel <je...@users.sf.net> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I merged a file multiple time where the first merge adds this file. I noticed
> that there is a conflict in this file which is not indicated by svn status:
>
> $ svn status configure.ac
> A + configure.ac
>
> Is there a valid status flag for this situation at all?
> I expected "C + " or something similar.
>
> $ ls -l configure.ac*
> -rw-r--r-- 1 jens users 4049 Jun 30 16:25 configure.ac
> -rw-r--r-- 1 jens users 4091 Jun 30 15:59 configure.ac.merge-links.r209
> -rw-r--r-- 1 jens users 4206 Jun 30 15:59 configure.ac.merge-rechts.r210
> -rw-r--r-- 1 jens users 3920 Jun 30 15:59 configure.ac.working
> $ svn resolved configure.ac
> Resolved conflicted state of 'configure.ac'
> $ svn resolved configure.ac
> $ svn status configure.ac
> A + configure.ac
>
> I'm not sure whether I'm able to reproduce this, but I could try if you want.
> My subversion version is 1.3.0 (r17949).
>
> Is this problem already known?
No, this problem is new. If you could create a reproduction recipe I
would be most gratefull!
Thanks in advance.
bye,
Erik.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org