Bert Huijben wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Johan Corveleyn [mailto:jcor...@gmail.com] >> Sent: dinsdag 11 juni 2013 23:37 >> To: Subversion Development >> Subject: Re: Automatic tree conflicts resolution during svn update >> >> On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 4:27 PM, Stefan Sperling <s...@elego.de> > wrote: >> > On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 02:12:14PM +0200, Stefan Sperling wrote: >> >> On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 07:21:19PM +0400, Danil Shopyrin wrote: >> >> > The current draft of the Subversion 1.8 Release Notes > announces >> >> > automatic tree conflicts resolution for locally moved files > and >> >> > directories. But it seems that this feature does not actually > work in >> >> > RC2. The detailed reproduction script is given below. I think > that we >> >> > should either drop this feature from the release notes or > provide a >> >> > better documentation on how to make it work. >> >> >> >> The feature is present and works as advertised. It's just not > triggered >> >> automatically because there were objections to making decisions on >> >> behalf of the user. >> >> >> >> Note that this is the behaviour of 'svn' -- other clients > can implement >> >> different behaviour and suggest or even hard-code some default > option >> >> without asking the user. >> >> >> >> I think the problem with 'svn' is that the menu options > were too hard >> >> to figure out. After some discussion with Ivan, I've tweaked > the > conflict >> >> prompt menu for clarity in this commit: > http://svn.apache.org/r1491762 >> >> >> >> Does this change settle the issue for you? >> > >> > FYI, this is what the new output looks like: >> > >> > $ svn up -r3 >> > Updating '.': >> > C alpha >> > At revision 3. >> > Summary of conflicts: >> > Tree conflicts: 1 >> > Tree conflict on 'alpha' >> > > local file moved away, incoming file edit upon update >> > Select: (mc) apply edit (recommended), (r) discard edit (breaks move), >> >> Why does discarding the incoming edit break the (local) move?
I was wondering the same thing. > The copy/add part would be of a different revision than the delete part of > the move if you don't apply the move. That doesn't make any sense to me as a user. "Discard edit" sounds like it means "act as if the incoming edit was a no-op"... and I would not expect a no-op to break the local move. - Julian
