Stefan Sperling wrote: > I filed the issue. I think I had in mind that we'd store multiple > conflicts, but I'm not quite sure. > > I agree with your plans to deal with the non-interactive --accept case. > > I have one concern about the interactive case where no --accept option > was passed, which we might want to consider addressing as well for 1.8. > > Currently, 'svn merge' errors out as follows if one of the ranges merged > in a multi-range merge conflicts. ... > That's fine and expected. It is the same as the --accept=postpone > behaviour you are proposing. > > But it seems what's missing is to continue the merge in case no > conflicts are left after the resolver returns. Consider: > > $ svn merge -c3,4 ^/trunk > --- Merging r3 into '.': > C alpha ... > Conflict discovered in file 'alpha'. ... > Select: (p) postpone, (df) diff-full, (e) edit, (m) merge, (r) resolved, > (mc) mine-conflict, (tc) theirs-conflict, (s) show all options: r > Resolved conflicted state of 'alpha' ... > svn: E155015: One or more conflicts were produced while merging r2:3 into > '/tmp/svn-sandbox/branch' -- > resolve all conflicts and rerun the merge to apply the remaining > unmerged revisions > > So the conflict has been resolved, but 'svn merge' stops anyway. > I think it should continue merging further ranges instead. > > I don't think we should continue the merge in case any conflicts are > left in the working copy, of course
OK, that all sounds good. I'll try to make it happen. - Julian
