On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 2:57 PM, Stefan Sperling <s...@elego.de> wrote: > On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 02:48:52PM +0100, Hyrum K. Wright wrote: >> On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 8:35 AM, Bert Huijben <b...@qqmail.nl> wrote: >> > I think it should check that a proper obstruction is notified and maybe >> > that >> > a future update brings in the new data. >> >> Is this in the intended future behavior, or the current behavior? In >> modifying the JavaHL test which is having this problem, I don't see >> obstructed_update notified, only a tree conflict. > > I think Neels changed the behaviour to flagging a tree conflict in r959735. > I am not sure if that is what we want. AFAIK we had decided long ago to not > treat obstructions as conflicts. But maybe we don't all agree on that? > > I'd say mark the text XFail for now, and file an issue with milestone > 1.7.0 prompting ourselves to make up our minds about this.
Could you file the issue? I'm not very current on the issues (as you seem to be); I'm just trying to avoid spurious test failures. I'll have happy to mark the tests XFail and reference them in the issue, though. -Hyrum
