On 18 September 2013 06:42, Grant Edwards <[email protected]> wrote: > On 2013-09-17, Kai Willadsen <[email protected]> wrote: >> On 18 September 2013 06:11, Grant Edwards <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> I think the problem is that Meld finds a CVS directory in the CWD, >>> but doesn't find a .svn directory in the CWD. CVS puts a "CVS" >>> directory in every directory in the working copy, but SVN only puts a >>> ".svn" directory in the top-level directory. IIRC, older versions of >>> subversion put a ".svn" directory everywhere (like CVS does with >>> "CVS" directories). >> >> Yep, that's the problem. >> >>> If Meld finds a "CVS" directory in the CWD, but doesn't find a ".svn" >>> directory in the CWD does it stop there, or does it continue to >>> search upwards for the ".svn" directory like it does when there's no >>> "CVS" directory? >> >> It does keep searching, but after doing all of its searching, it >> chooses the deepest VC root it finds as the 'true root'. This is so >> that if you're in nested repositories, you get the deepest one, which >> I think was the right behaviour back when we didn't support switching >> between VCs. Whether it's still right now is a different question. > > Personally, I never need to "switch" VCs. A command line switch to > select which one to use would be fine for me. Other people's work > flows probably differ.
Sure. Most people never need to switch VCs at all; I only ever do it for testing. There is a bug already filed for the command-line switch. However, in general most people don't need that either. Most uses of multiple VCs in a repo are 'new' on top of 'old', and you almost always want to see the 'new' one. In your case, this is a problem with how we're finding which VCs to offer, not on the order in which they're chosen, so a switch wouldn't help. (I mean... it could be *made* to help, but it's a lot easier to fix the underlying problem.) >> However, that aside, the underlying problem is that for VCs where we >> *don't* walk the tree to find the root (i.e., CVS and SVN < 1.7), we >> just report CWD as the root, which is wrong when figuring out what to >> use. > > FWIW, in my case the SVN root is one directory level higher than the > CVS root, but all directories under the CVS root are also under the > SVN root (both CVS and SVN are valid). > > So, should I file a bug? Yes please! This is a definite issue. I suspect that it only hasn't been reported because not that many people invoke Meld on subdirectories of the repo, and not that many people are using CVS or old SVN. cheers, Kai On 18 September 2013 06:42, Grant Edwards <[email protected]> wrote: > On 2013-09-17, Kai Willadsen <[email protected]> wrote: >> On 18 September 2013 06:11, Grant Edwards <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> I think the problem is that Meld finds a CVS directory in the CWD, >>> but doesn't find a .svn directory in the CWD. CVS puts a "CVS" >>> directory in every directory in the working copy, but SVN only puts a >>> ".svn" directory in the top-level directory. IIRC, older versions of >>> subversion put a ".svn" directory everywhere (like CVS does with >>> "CVS" directories). >> >> Yep, that's the problem. >> >>> If Meld finds a "CVS" directory in the CWD, but doesn't find a ".svn" >>> directory in the CWD does it stop there, or does it continue to >>> search upwards for the ".svn" directory like it does when there's no >>> "CVS" directory? >> >> It does keep searching, but after doing all of its searching, it >> chooses the deepest VC root it finds as the 'true root'. This is so >> that if you're in nested repositories, you get the deepest one, which >> I think was the right behaviour back when we didn't support switching >> between VCs. Whether it's still right now is a different question. > > Personally, I never need to "switch" VCs. A command line switch to > select which one to use would be fine for me. Other people's work > flows probably differ. > >> However, that aside, the underlying problem is that for VCs where we >> *don't* walk the tree to find the root (i.e., CVS and SVN < 1.7), we >> just report CWD as the root, which is wrong when figuring out what to >> use. > > FWIW, in my case the SVN root is one directory level higher than the > CVS root, but all directories under the CVS root are also under the > SVN root (both CVS and SVN are valid). > > So, should I file a bug? > > -- > Grant Edwards grant.b.edwards Yow! Kids, don't gross me > at off ... "Adventures with > gmail.com MENTAL HYGIENE" can be > carried too FAR! > > _______________________________________________ > meld-list mailing list > [email protected] > https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/meld-list _______________________________________________ meld-list mailing list [email protected] https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/meld-list
