subversion-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Sven Uhlig <>
Subject Re: unexpected tree conflict on merge for same source file
Date Sun, 21 Oct 2012 07:53:49 GMT
Am 18.10.2012 15:06, schrieb Stefan Sperling:
> On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 02:10:25PM +0200, Sven Uhlig wrote:
>> Am 17.10.2012 19:12, schrieb Stefan Sperling:
>> At the time when the branches were created there was no use of shared
>> code. Later some functions seem to be unexpectedly usefull in the other
>> branch.
> That happens and is sometimes not avoidable, but it also indicates poor
> planning and/or developer coordination. [...]
> It sounds
> like it is an exceptional circumstance, which means we're not talking
> about a problem you are hitting often, which is good. Is that correct?

It is an exception. But I am afraid that this can happen at any time again.

> And don't get me wrong, I'm just describing how Subversion works to
> explain why you are seeing conflicts. I'm not saying these spurious
> conflicts are a good thing.

It is good that you have said that. I was not sure if you didn't
understand the problem or if you are just describing SVN's behaviour. So
you do understand and you are just describing - that's fine.

>> I think that SVN records the wrong revisions for mergeinfo or copy
>> because the file was not changed since addition but SVN still remembers
>> a newer revision than the latest change and thus sees a conflict/difference.
> It doesn't record wrong information in the sense that the information
> is inaccurate.

My idea was that if SVN recorded other revisions or information then may
be SVN could see that it is the same file.

> Yes, there are some nice improvements coming in 1.8. But I don't
> think the spurious add vs. add conflict we're talking about will be
> automatically resolved in 1.8. Maybe in 1.9 or later.
> We're currently still working on more basic problems in this area.

Well, there are work-arounds available. If everyone knows them, and if
everyone knows that there will be improvements at some time, then
everything is fine.

Unfortunately 1.9 is far away in the future :(

> Reporting issues like this helps us to see what kinds of tree conflicts
> people are hitting in practice.

Before I posted to this list, I used Google to find similar issues and I
did. So I was not sure if you'll accept yet another question for the
same SVN error message. I'm glad to see that you still reply :)

> This is very valuable and helps the project.
> And more help is always welcome, if you're interested :)

I'm not sure if I understand the last part "if you're interested." Do
you mean help as active member of the mailing list, as a tester/bug
reporter or help as a developer?

Best regards

PS: Sorry for the late reply.

View raw message