C. Michael Pilato wrote: > Paul Burba wrote: >> 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. > > Oh, gosh, no. I think my comment is less about your proposed change and > more of a general tree conflict thing. I would feel more warm and fuzzy if > I knew that the tree conflict information that we leave around is clear > about the reason for the conflict. That a missing-due-to-sparse-checkouts > directory is the reason for the conflict, not just some generic "something > is missing" note. That way folks can immediately know, if not by explicit > recommendation stored in the conflict information then at least by > inference, that they could probably avoid the conflict by reverting the > merge, de-shallowing the directories that the merge wished were present, and > then repeating the merge.
Had I read your question with my brain fully engaged in the task, I think I would have chosen different words of response. I certainly wouldn't have started off with "Oh, gosh, no". Sorry, Paul. I think it would be great if there was a way at the end of the merge to say, "Hey, we notice that you had some tree conflicts, all of the variety caused by directories missing-due-to-shallowness. Here's a recommended fix, if you care." Do we have that kind of data and opportunity available? -- C. Michael Pilato <cmpil...@collab.net> CollabNet <> www.collab.net <> Distributed Development On Demand
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
