On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 2:15 PM, Bert Huijben <b...@qqmail.nl> wrote: > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Paul Burba [mailto:ptbu...@gmail.com] >> Sent: donderdag 10 januari 2013 19:59 >> To: Bert Huijben >> Cc: dev@subversion.apache.org >> Subject: Re: svn commit: r1431114 - >> /subversion/trunk/subversion/svn/merge-cmd.c >> >> On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 12:38 PM, Bert Huijben <b...@qqmail.nl> wrote: >> > >> > >> >> -----Original Message----- >> >> From: pbu...@apache.org [mailto:pbu...@apache.org] >> >> Sent: woensdag 9 januari 2013 23:04 >> >> To: comm...@subversion.apache.org >> >> Subject: svn commit: r1431114 - >> /subversion/trunk/subversion/svn/merge- >> >> cmd.c >> >> >> >> Author: pburba >> >> Date: Wed Jan 9 22:04:24 2013 >> >> New Revision: 1431114 >> >> >> >> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1431114&view=rev >> >> Log: >> >> Fix issue #4139 'Subversion cannot perform merge if there's a file with >> >> the same name as directory'. >> >> >> >> * subversion/svn/merge-cmd.c >> >> (svn_cl__merge): If the basename of the source is the same as the >> >> basename of the current working directory, then assume the cwd is the >> >> target. >> > >> > I never heard of and/or noticed this behavior >> >> Hi Bert, >> >> Which behavior are you referring to: The old behavior, the bug with >> the old behavior, or the new behavior? >> >> The old behavior was this: >> >> 'svn merge ^/src/base-name .' and 'svn merge ^src/base-name' both used >> the cwd at the merge target *unless* there is a file in the cwd with >> the same name as the source basename. In that case the file was the >> merge target. > > The question I asked was, shouldn't we make that first case think the "." is > an explicit target? > > "I tell svn where to merge to and I would have guessed that it just did what > I asked."
Ok, seems you are saying what I said before: > Merge target: "." --> No guessing, the target is *always* the cwd. > > Merge target: "" --> Target guessing heuristics apply. I'm good with that. If nobody objects I can make that change. > That we want to be smart for the second case is a different question, but my > preference would be that this explicit '.' case would be handled as the plain > api. Mildly puzzled: Which API do you mean? Everything we are talking about is in svn_cl__merge(), prior to calling any public APIs. I think I know what you mean...but I'm not entirely sure :-) > (Our testsuite doesn't care: it only tests the second variant) > > Bert > -- Paul T. Burba CollabNet, Inc. -- www.collab.net -- Enterprise Cloud Development Skype: ptburba
