Stephen Butler wrote on Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 09:35:27 +0200: > > > 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. :-) >
I almost missed the rest of your reply, Stephen. (I've left it quoted below; tldr: "Yes, please file an issue" :-) ) > > 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 > > >
