On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 2:34 PM, C. Michael Pilato <cmpil...@collab.net> wrote: > Paul Burba wrote: >> In a perfect world maybe we'd give a error along the lines of 'hey, >> you are trying to reintegrate into a shallow WC and some of the paths >> affected by the merge aren't present, you are going to get tree >> conflicts, is this really what you want? :-)' >> >> But going this route adds more merge special casing and obviously has >> a performance penalty, two things we definitely don't need more of. > > Can we give this feedback at the time of the conflict rather than up front? > That is, can we avoid the performance penalty of an upfront merge forecast > but still tell folks, when they get those tree conflicts, "Hey, you could > avoid this kind of conflict by simply not having directory FOO missing by > sparse configuration; go flesh that sucker out and retry this reintegration."
Mike, Do you mean to let the merge complete and give the warning at the *end* rather than stopping the merge on the first tree conflict due to a missing subtree-caused-by-a-shallow-WC? After all, the user might not care about some tree conflicts and want the merge to complete as best it can. Paul > -- > C. Michael Pilato <cmpil...@collab.net> > CollabNet <> www.collab.net <> Distributed Development On Demand > >
