On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 11:41:47PM +0100, Johan Corveleyn wrote: > On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 12:20 PM, Stefan Sperling <s...@elego.de> wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Another update on the new conflict resolver: > > > > We have 36 conflict resolver tests, all of which PASS. > > I have updated the wiki page about conflict tests accordingly: > > https://wiki.apache.org/subversion/TreeConflictTests > > > > The 36 tests we have still do not cover much of the overall problem space. > > However, our tests cover the existing conflict options. I guess we will be > > expanding our set of tests whenever new options get added and user-reported > > bugs get fixed. I don't see much value in adding additional regression tests > > at this point. Rather, I think we need to get the resolver out into the > > hands > > of users to see if it meets their expectations during day-to-day operation. > > > > Apart from tests, there are other important points marked with [X] in: > > https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/subversion/trunk/notes/meetings/berlin-16-minutes > > Among those, only one is left unresolved: > > > > - Markup in test descriptions (for GUI clients). (Suggested by ivan) > > > > Since I am not a GUI developer I will leave this task to somebody else who > > is more competent in that area. Of course, I would be able to support such > > an effort and help with making design decisions and getting an > > implementation > > worked out. > > > > Other unresolved items mentioned in this file are: > > > > - Recommended resolution option(s) > > (includes support for using the conflict resolver with --non-interactive) > > - Working copy operations are not atomic > > - Resolution scripts (aka custom user-defined resolution options) > > - Issue with multirange merge > > > > I myself do not plan to address these items for the 1.10.0 release. > > I would be fine with releasing the current implementation as 1.10.0 and to > > fix bugs and add more resolution options during the 1.10.x release series. > > The current feature set already provides huge improvements over 1.9. > > Further improvements, which require API changes, can be postponed to 1.11. > > > > I would like to get an 1.10.0 alpha1 released in February. Unless I hear > > objections I will start rolling this alpha release from trunk and call a > > vote on it soon. > > That's great news, Stefan, and I bow to your perseverance on this. Great work!
Thanks :) Funding I got from VisualSVN and elego helped a lot in making this happen. > I'm wondering if we should also create a table / documentation listing > the supported conflict options, and what they do. Or is this more or > less the same as the TreeConflictTests table, since as you said it > covers the existing conflict resolution options? For our own purposes the table in the wiki is fine. I will create another similar table for our 1.10 release notes. I hope I can come up with a table that is easier for end users to understand than what we have in the wiki.
