On 09.05.2017 12:14, Stefan Sperling 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'm strongly against producing additional text conflicts.
My feeling is that 1.9 (1.8?) already produces more of
those than prior releases did and it annoys me.
If we missed a reasonable corner case - by all means
get that fixed. But don't break the reasonably well
working cases.
-- Stefan^2.
