jcor...@tigris.org wrote on Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 04:38:07 -0700: > http://subversion.tigris.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2685 > > > > > > > ------- Additional comments from jcor...@tigris.org Fri Aug 26 04:38:06 -0700 > 2011 ------- > Wouldn't it be better to repurpose this issue, rather than marking it fixed? >
If you disagree with what I did to this issue, you're probably right (since I was doing a BFS and didn't study each issue in the deepest possible manner). In this instance I think we already have issues for that --- eg, compare Stefan's recent work on implementing moves/renames (which?) in wc-ng --- but if we don't, +1 to reopen. > Maybe there won't be data loss anymore, because a tree conflict will be > flagged. > But I think it's still reasonable to expect svn to resolve this > automatically. > > Or, on a more fundamental level: there is something to be said for having > merge > "replay" a move on trunk into an equivalent move on the branch. If the source > of > the move doesn't exist on the branch, a tree conflict could be flagged. > > A consequence of this would be that "svn log" on "/BRANCH/TOMOVE/test.txt" > follows a more logical path (i.e. it was copied from "/BRANCH/test.txt" > (rather > than from "/TRUNK/TOMOVE/test.txt), which could have had several interesting > changes on the branch). > > I'm not sure if this would completely solve the "move + merge + modifications > on > branch" issue (cf. Lieven's scenario in #desc9), but it certainly feels more > natural to me. > > So repurposing this issue into something like "Merge should apply moves/copies > as equivalent operations relative to the branch" or something similar makes > sense to me (or at least seriously investigate/analyze this approach). > > ------------------------------------------------------ > http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=463&dsMessageId=2830567 > > To unsubscribe from this discussion, e-mail: > [issues-unsubscr...@subversion.tigris.org].
