You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@subversion.apache.org by Stefan Sperling <st...@elego.de> on 2009/03/19 21:55:17 UTC
Re: Tree conflicts display and revert (was Re: Spurious conflicted
overlay)
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 12:46:04AM +0300, Konstantin Kolinko wrote:
> 2009/3/20 Simon Large <si...@googlemail.com>:
> > I think what happens is this:
> > doc/source has the property svn:ignore=*
> > The incorrect merge then tries to merge a load of stuff from doc/
> > which of course does not exist, so is marked as missing with tree
> > conflict. However, since everything in source is ignored, these
> > conflicts are hidden. I would expect a conflict status to override an
> > ignore and show up anyway.
> >
>
> I agree with this explanation.
>
> So, it is bug in svn status, triggered by svn:ignore=*
>
>
> It does not seem to be fatal, as no data are lost.
>
> Best regards,
> Konstantin Kolinko
Please file an issue pointing back to this thread in the archives.
Thanks,
Stefan
Re: Tree conflicts display and revert (was Re: Spurious conflicted
overlay)
Posted by Stefan Sperling <st...@elego.de>.
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 01:46:59AM +0300, Konstantin Kolinko wrote:
> 2009/3/20 Stefan Sperling <st...@elego.de>:
> >> Please file an issue pointing back to this thread in the archives.
> >
>
> Done:
> http://subversion.tigris.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3382
Perfect, thank you!
Stefan
Re: Tree conflicts display and revert (was Re: Spurious conflicted
overlay)
Posted by Stefan Sperling <st...@elego.de>.
On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 09:55:17PM +0000, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 12:46:04AM +0300, Konstantin Kolinko wrote:
> > 2009/3/20 Simon Large <si...@googlemail.com>:
> > > I think what happens is this:
> > > doc/source has the property svn:ignore=*
> > > The incorrect merge then tries to merge a load of stuff from doc/
> > > which of course does not exist, so is marked as missing with tree
> > > conflict. However, since everything in source is ignored, these
> > > conflicts are hidden. I would expect a conflict status to override an
> > > ignore and show up anyway.
> > >
> >
> > I agree with this explanation.
> >
> > So, it is bug in svn status, triggered by svn:ignore=*
> >
> >
> > It does not seem to be fatal, as no data are lost.
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Konstantin Kolinko
>
> Please file an issue pointing back to this thread in the archives.
Oh, and putting "tree-conflicts" in the keywords field would be nice!
I have a bookmark for those.
Stefan