On Tue, 2010-08-24, Stefan Sperling wrote: > On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 06:40:39PM +0100, Julian Foad wrote: > > You seem to be talking only about the case where the (locally added) > > target is the root of the whole merge, and saying that lack of ancestral > > relationship between the source node and this target node doesn't > > matter. Maybe the user performing the merge is fully aware of what > > he/she is doing, which is fine in this simple case. But what about the > > general case, where the modification to a locally added node may be > > somewhere deep down in a merge that's supposed to be a simple automatic > > merge? > > I don't think locally added nodes somewhere deep within the merge target > are affected by this change. Those should be handled by the regular > tree conflict logic. The change only affects the merge target root, > which can now be a locally added file or directory. Previously, > Subversion just errored out on locally added merge target roots > and didn't merge anything at all.
Oh, OK! That makes sense then. - Julian
