On Mar 16, 2012 9:29 AM, "Philip Martin" <philip.mar...@wandisco.com> wrote: > > Greg Stein <gst...@gmail.com> writes: > > > I think the update should ask, "apply edits to A/f to your moved B/f?". > > If the user says "no" then I think we would have to break the move and > convert it into a copy + delete. If the user copies A/f@3 to B/f and > then updates A/f to r4, it doesn't make sense for B/f to remain a move.
I think you misstated something here. "copies to" vs "remain a move". If the first was "move A/f@3 to B/f", then the update to A/f@4 is a conflict. Today, we call it an incoming-edit/local-delete conflict. With moves, this is what I've been saying: it becomes an incoming-edit/local-move conflict. It doesn't mysteriously and silently update B/f. The user can choose two outcomes, I believe: 1) apply edit to B/f. Local-move becomes A/f@4 to B/f. 2) install A/f@4. Local-move becomes copy of A/f@3 to B/f. If the move-source is a directory, then the restore+changes becomes a bit more difficult: how much to restore? For example, if I move A, an incoming edit changes A/B/f, do I restore all of A (eg. A/C, A/D...) or just A/B? > Note that the destination isn't always a working file. Consider a > working copy with 3 files A/Y/f, B/Y/f, C/Y/f. Move A to X, delete X/Y, > move B/Y to X/Y, delete X/Y/f, move C/Y/f to X/Y/f: > > op-depth local-relpath presence moved-to moved-here > 0 A normal > 0 A/Y normal > 0 A/Y/f normal > 1 A deleted X > 1 A/Y deleted > 1 A/Y/f deleted > 0 B normal > 0 B/Y normal > 0 B/Y/f normal > 2 B/Y deleted X/Y > 2 B/Y/f deleted > 0 C normal > 0 C/Y normal > 0 C/Y/f normal > 3 C/Y/f deleted X/Y/f > 1 X normal 1 > 1 X/Y normal 1 > 1 X/Y/f normal 1 > 2 X/Y normal 1 > 2 X/Y/f normal 1 > 3 X/Y/f normal 1 > > So the file X/Y/f exists at op-depth 1, 2 and 3. An update that changes > B/Y/f needs to update the row X/Y/f at op-depth 2 although no change is > made to the working file. Woah. Interesting! Though I'd call that a conflict again. It is definitely an edit/delete conflict (X/Y/f was explicitly deleted). I argue it is an edit/move conflict first. If the user forward-applies the edit, they get the edit/delete conflict. Though I guess a better phrase is edit/replace. What are the resolution options for edit/replace? Toss the edit, or undo the replace (a move-dest in this case) and apply the edit. Cheers, -g
