On Jun 25, 2012, at 3:14 PM, Stefan Sperling <s...@elego.de> wrote: > On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 09:03:47PM +0200, Stefan Sperling wrote: >> on the same working copy. E.g. a 1.7 client might run into tree conflicts >> which it cannot understand because a 1.8 client flagged a conflict involving >> a move. I believe we should bump to avoid such problems. > > FYI, here is what this looks like: > > With trunk: > > $ svn status > ! C alpha >> local moved away and edited, incoming delete upon update > A + alpha2 > Summary of conflicts: > Tree conflicts: 1 > > With 1.7.x: > > $ svn status > subversion/svn/status-cmd.c:344: (apr_err=155016) > subversion/svn/util.c:981: (apr_err=155016) > subversion/libsvn_client/status.c:490: (apr_err=155016) > subversion/libsvn_wc/status.c:2421: (apr_err=155016) > subversion/libsvn_wc/status.c:2421: (apr_err=155016) > subversion/libsvn_wc/status.c:1200: (apr_err=155016) > subversion/svn/status.c:210: (apr_err=155016) > subversion/svn/status.c:210: (apr_err=155016) > subversion/libsvn_wc/wc_db.c:5814: (apr_err=155016) > subversion/libsvn_wc/wc_db.c:5814: (apr_err=155016) > subversion/libsvn_wc/tree_conflicts.c:249: (apr_err=155016) > subversion/libsvn_wc/tree_conflicts.c:130: (apr_err=155016) > svn: E155016: Unknown enumeration value in tree conflict description > > I don't see a way to avoid this problem for 1.7 clients, apart from either > reverting the tree conflict description changes or bumping the format.
What about the move feature? What happens when 1.7 client commits a move or partial move that was made with 1.8? Mark
