> -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: donderdag 28 juni 2012 18:41 > To: [email protected] > Subject: svn commit: r1355070 - /subversion/trunk/notes/wc-ng/conflict- > storage-2.0 > > Author: gstein > Date: Thu Jun 28 16:40:30 2012 > New Revision: 1355070 > > URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1355070&view=rev > Log: > * notes/wc-ng/conflict-storage-2.0: add some comments/questions
Thanks for reviewing! > Modified: > subversion/trunk/notes/wc-ng/conflict-storage-2.0 > > Modified: subversion/trunk/notes/wc-ng/conflict-storage-2.0 > URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/subversion/trunk/notes/wc-ng/conflict- > storage-2.0?rev=1355070&r1=1355069&r2=1355070&view=diff > ========================================================== > ==================== > --- subversion/trunk/notes/wc-ng/conflict-storage-2.0 (original) > +++ subversion/trunk/notes/wc-ng/conflict-storage-2.0 Thu Jun 28 16:40:30 > 2012 > @@ -159,6 +159,13 @@ independently once this is implemented. > The --accept options already provide a lot of additional value and the > WHY model would allow access to the specific sets by URL. > > +### gs: there are FOUR values of interest w.r.t property conflicts. > +### and each of these may be missing to designate the property > +### does not exist. see 'conflict-storage'. I followed the definition in svn_wc_conflict_description2_t where this extra value is missing. Looking at my current test failures (where I switched to three table approach) I really need more information so thanks for confiming. It appears that the merge code uses a 4-way diff, while the current conflict description used for resolving is modeled as a 3-way diff. So this will need extension too. > +### gs: the property name needs to be stored. again, see 'conflict-storage' Conflict-storage documents a nice to have future version of conflicts, including many infrastructure that doesn't exist yet. All the future ideas is why I started the new approach. But I have a list of properties in my current implementation. See subversion/libsvn_wc/conflicts.h. I will update the property documentation after I get this code working. (Just a few test failures left. So that mostly implies that we need more tests) > + > + > Tree Conflicts > -------------- > > @@ -176,3 +183,7 @@ where it applies to the WHY parts. > > It would be nice if some other --accept values would be accepted, but that > is outside the scope of this design. > + > +### gs: is LOCAL-STATE defined the same as in 'conflict-storage' ? Exactly as in the current tree conflict skel. I haven't started implementing this. > + > +### gs: what is the definition of INCOMING-ACTION ? Same: Exactly as in the current tree conflict skel. I haven't started implementing this. Bert
