You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@subversion.apache.org by Neels Janosch Hofmeyr <ne...@elego.de> on 2009/06/16 21:23:55 UTC
ignoring tree-conflicts during merge
Hi guys,
I'd like to renew an old question, since I can't find any final conclusion
to it: merge, --force and tree-conflicts detection. ... "?"
http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=462&dsMessageId=90455&orderBy=createDate&orderType=desc
Are we still positive that skipping tree-conflicts detection during merge
with --force is no good?
And, that a way to skip TC detection during merge is yet a missing feature?
(does anyone remember an issue for this? couldn't find any.)
I've also got this snippet from notes/tree-conflicts/detection.txt:
[[[
==================
SKIPPING DETECTION
==================
During an update or switch, we skip tree conflict detection if the
user has provided the '--force' option. This allows an interrupted
update to continue (see the use case 1 example below). This is in
addition to the already-existing behavior: with '--force', update or
switch will tolerate an obstruction of the same type as the item added
at that path by the operation.
During a merge, we skip tree conflict detection if the record_only
field of the merge-command baton is TRUE. A record-only merge
operation updates mergeinfo without touching files.
=========================
]]]
Thanks for any comments.
~Neels
------------------------------------------------------
http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=462&dsMessageId=2362605
Re: ignoring tree-conflicts during merge
Posted by Neels Janosch Hofmeyr <ne...@elego.de>.
Stefan Sperling wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 11:47:42AM +0100, Stefan Sperling wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 11:23:55PM +0200, Neels J Hofmeyr wrote:
>>> Hi guys,
>>>
>>> I'd like to renew an old question, since I can't find any final conclusion
>>> to it: merge, --force and tree-conflicts detection. ... "?"
>>>
>>> http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=462&dsMessageId=90455&orderBy=createDate&orderType=desc
>>>
>>> Are we still positive that skipping tree-conflicts detection during merge
>>> with --force is no good?
>>>
>>> And, that a way to skip TC detection during merge is yet a missing feature?
>>> (does anyone remember an issue for this? couldn't find any.)
>>>
>>> I've also got this snippet from notes/tree-conflicts/detection.txt:
>>>
>>> [[[
>>> ==================
>>> SKIPPING DETECTION
>>> ==================
>> I think the paragraph below was written before we started to
>> always skip tree-conflict victims, and before we updated
>> text-bases of tree conflict victims to the revision being
>> updated to, so that 'revert' yields the item at the new revision.
>>
>> Since we're skipping tree-conflict victims automatically now,
>> you can run the merge twice, and the second merge will skip
>> the victim, just as if the user had passed --force.
>>
>> Since that seems to cover all concerns voiced in the paragraph
>> below, I'd say the paragraph is outdated and should be deleted
>> from the notes, or replaced with a description of the current
>> behaviour.
>
> Whoops, reverse, reverse!
>
> I just checked, and it is actually true that tree conflicts do not
> get flagged during a merge if --force is passed.
> Apologies for any confusion I might have caused!
The confusion is not over yet:
If I'm not mistaken, then merge omits *some* of the tree-conflicts kinds
during merge when it has --force, while others are unaffected.
We should write a lot of tests. ;)
~Neels
>
> Stefan
>
>>> During an update or switch, we skip tree conflict detection if the
>>> user has provided the '--force' option. This allows an interrupted
>>> update to continue (see the use case 1 example below). This is in
>>> addition to the already-existing behavior: with '--force', update or
>>> switch will tolerate an obstruction of the same type as the item added
>>> at that path by the operation.
>>>
>>> During a merge, we skip tree conflict detection if the record_only
>>> field of the merge-command baton is TRUE. A record-only merge
>>> operation updates mergeinfo without touching files.
>>>
>>> =========================
>>> ]]]
>>>
>>> Thanks for any comments.
>>> ~Neels
>>>
>>
>
------------------------------------------------------
http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=462&dsMessageId=2363561
Re: ignoring tree-conflicts during merge
Posted by Stefan Sperling <st...@elego.de>.
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 11:47:42AM +0100, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 11:23:55PM +0200, Neels J Hofmeyr wrote:
> > Hi guys,
> >
> > I'd like to renew an old question, since I can't find any final conclusion
> > to it: merge, --force and tree-conflicts detection. ... "?"
> >
> > http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=462&dsMessageId=90455&orderBy=createDate&orderType=desc
> >
> > Are we still positive that skipping tree-conflicts detection during merge
> > with --force is no good?
> >
> > And, that a way to skip TC detection during merge is yet a missing feature?
> > (does anyone remember an issue for this? couldn't find any.)
> >
> > I've also got this snippet from notes/tree-conflicts/detection.txt:
> >
> > [[[
> > ==================
> > SKIPPING DETECTION
> > ==================
>
> I think the paragraph below was written before we started to
> always skip tree-conflict victims, and before we updated
> text-bases of tree conflict victims to the revision being
> updated to, so that 'revert' yields the item at the new revision.
>
> Since we're skipping tree-conflict victims automatically now,
> you can run the merge twice, and the second merge will skip
> the victim, just as if the user had passed --force.
>
> Since that seems to cover all concerns voiced in the paragraph
> below, I'd say the paragraph is outdated and should be deleted
> from the notes, or replaced with a description of the current
> behaviour.
Whoops, reverse, reverse!
I just checked, and it is actually true that tree conflicts do not
get flagged during a merge if --force is passed.
Apologies for any confusion I might have caused!
Stefan
> > During an update or switch, we skip tree conflict detection if the
> > user has provided the '--force' option. This allows an interrupted
> > update to continue (see the use case 1 example below). This is in
> > addition to the already-existing behavior: with '--force', update or
> > switch will tolerate an obstruction of the same type as the item added
> > at that path by the operation.
> >
> > During a merge, we skip tree conflict detection if the record_only
> > field of the merge-command baton is TRUE. A record-only merge
> > operation updates mergeinfo without touching files.
> >
> > =========================
> > ]]]
> >
> > Thanks for any comments.
> > ~Neels
> >
>
>
Re: ignoring tree-conflicts during merge
Posted by Stefan Sperling <st...@elego.de>.
On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 11:23:55PM +0200, Neels J Hofmeyr wrote:
> Hi guys,
>
> I'd like to renew an old question, since I can't find any final conclusion
> to it: merge, --force and tree-conflicts detection. ... "?"
>
> http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=462&dsMessageId=90455&orderBy=createDate&orderType=desc
>
> Are we still positive that skipping tree-conflicts detection during merge
> with --force is no good?
>
> And, that a way to skip TC detection during merge is yet a missing feature?
> (does anyone remember an issue for this? couldn't find any.)
>
> I've also got this snippet from notes/tree-conflicts/detection.txt:
>
> [[[
> ==================
> SKIPPING DETECTION
> ==================
I think the paragraph below was written before we started to
always skip tree-conflict victims, and before we updated
text-bases of tree conflict victims to the revision being
updated to, so that 'revert' yields the item at the new revision.
Since we're skipping tree-conflict victims automatically now,
you can run the merge twice, and the second merge will skip
the victim, just as if the user had passed --force.
Since that seems to cover all concerns voiced in the paragraph
below, I'd say the paragraph is outdated and should be deleted
from the notes, or replaced with a description of the current
behaviour.
Stefan
> During an update or switch, we skip tree conflict detection if the
> user has provided the '--force' option. This allows an interrupted
> update to continue (see the use case 1 example below). This is in
> addition to the already-existing behavior: with '--force', update or
> switch will tolerate an obstruction of the same type as the item added
> at that path by the operation.
>
> During a merge, we skip tree conflict detection if the record_only
> field of the merge-command baton is TRUE. A record-only merge
> operation updates mergeinfo without touching files.
>
> =========================
> ]]]
>
> Thanks for any comments.
> ~Neels
>