On Mar 29, 2012, at 1:24 , Varnau, Steve (Seaquest R&D) wrote:
> I did not get any responses on this bug report, neither confirming nor > denying. We're an open community, as you know. If something is neither confirmed nor denied, then nothing happened. :-) > So I guess the next step is to file an issue? > > -Steve > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Varnau, Steve (Seaquest R&D) [...] >> ### Here's the bug -- why do both sides of conflict show same content? >> cat keyfile >> <<<<<<< .working >> $Date: 2012-03-26 10:09:19 -0700 (Mon, 26 Mar 2012) $ $Revision: 5 $ >> ======= >> $Date: 2012-03-26 10:09:19 -0700 (Mon, 26 Mar 2012) $ $Revision: 5 $ >>>>>>>>> .merge-right.r6 >> some changes >> $Id$ >> FWIW, with 1.6.17 the working file has different content, including a visible conflict in the first line. [[[ $ cat keyfile <<<<<<< .working $Date: 2012-03-29 09:15:48 +0200 (Thu, 29 Mar 2012) $ $Revision: 5 $ ======= $Date: 2012-03-29 09:15:46 +0200 (Thu, 29 Mar 2012) $ $Revision: 4 $ >>>>>>> .merge-right.r6 some changes $Id: keyfile 5 2012-03-29 07:15:48Z steve $ ]]] The other files are the same as with 1.7. In view of the incoming change to the svn:keywords property, from "Date Revision" to "Id", this conflict (even in 1.6) doesn't make much sense to me. After the merge, with svn:keywords set to "Id", if we were to re-apply the keyword translation, the conflict in the first line wouldn't exist. In the working copy and in^/trunk@6, the first line is simply "$Date$ $Revision$", untranslated. I'm not sure why the first line remains expanded despite the change to svn:keywords. So, yes, please file an issue. Regards, Steve Butler
