On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 12:14 PM, Stefan Sperling <s...@elego.de> wrote: > I have seen several instances of proposals in our STATUS file where I > cannot merge without text conflicts because I am using a trunk client. > > I suppose most of us use 1.9.x clients to do such merges, because > otherwise there would be a lot more backport branches in STATUS when > nominations get added, and before I run into such a conflict. > > This is probably due to the stricter text conflict checks added in r1731699. > If so, are we really sure that we want to make the new behaviour the default? > I can imagine that in organizations with a diverse SVN client install base > this change will cause a lot of misunderstandings and confusion among users. > > And with the conflict resolver we are trying to make tree conflicts less > painful. Now, at the same time text conflicts have become a lot more painful > than they used to be. I don't think this is going to be a good sell.
I agree. These conflicts seem unnecessary and that will hurt SVN's usability. Now, r1731699 [1] also apparently fixed a real issue, reported by a user long ago. So imho the questions are: * Was that really an issue, or more a case of "difference of opinion on possible behaviour for an edge case"? * If it was an issue, is there another way to fix it, or to improve the fix, so it doesn't introduce these unnecessary conflicts. On IRC yesterday Bert said: "There should be ways to improve this further... and if this becomes a real problem we should revert the change. I would like to see that original case fixed, but I not at all costs." So, can we discuss this further to find a good solution? How to proceed? [1] http://svn.apache.org/r1731699 -- Johan
