Daniel Sahlberg wrote on Sun, 11 Apr 2021 10:59 +00:00: > Den fre 9 apr. 2021 kl 22:20 skrev Julian Foad <julianf...@apache.org>: > > Daniel and Daniel, thanks for your replies. > > > > Responding in summary, after taking all your points and questions into > > consideration. > > > > 1. I agree with softening this to be a warning rather than a hard error in > > a patch release, and then a hard error in 1.15. I hadn't thought of doing a > > preprocessor-based time-bomb; good idea. I will retract my backport until I > > have done that. > > > > 2. Returning to 1.6/1.7 behaviour is not something to be aspired to. Never > > mind the reversion of the source:target comparison in 1.8 being accidental; > > at least in part, the omission of sufficient URL comparisons in the first > > place was accidental (the source1:source2 part), and even if some of the > > possible combinations of inputs "worked" in 1.6/1.7 we can agree for sure > > that the set of possible combinations is not well tested. 1.6/1.7 did not > > cleanly implement a policy of "URLs can differ as long as they point to the > > same or equivalent repositories". Rather it was, URLs can differ in the > > source:target inputs (but not the source1:source2 inputs) to certain merge > > entry points, in the sense that we don't reject this, and it may even > > partly or fully work with merge tracking merges, but we are not sure and > > nothing is tested except "foreign merge" cases. I wouldn't want to see us > > introduce any half-measure, but only a full policy of "we distinguish > > repositories by their UUID rather than any given URL, in all cases" which > > should include non-merge cases such as diff as well, and I think that is > > out of scope at the present time and investment level in Subversion; it > > would be a "Subversion 2" wish list item if we ever go there.
FWIW, I don't immediately see why this is a milestone=2.0 matter. It may be possible to implement this backwards-compatibly. > It seems to me that you have thought this through and I'm not the one > to question your judgement. > > Would this be something that should go in the "Most wanted" list in > https://subversion.apache.org/roadmap.html? +1 to Julian's answer.
