On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 5:46 PM, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 05:24:39PM +0200, Johan Corveleyn wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 3:44 PM, Stefan Sperling wrote:
>> > On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 03:27:58PM +0200, Johan Corveleyn wrote:
>> >> I'd say, just edit the moved file with
On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 05:24:39PM +0200, Johan Corveleyn wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 3:44 PM, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 03:27:58PM +0200, Johan Corveleyn wrote:
> >> I'd say, just edit the moved file with the incoming content, embedded
> >> in conflict markers, just
On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 3:44 PM, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 03:27:58PM +0200, Johan Corveleyn wrote:
>> I'd say, just edit the moved file with the incoming content, embedded
>> in conflict markers, just like what we do for text conflicts. That, I
>> think, would be as good as
> -Original Message-
> From: Branko Čibej [mailto:br...@wandisco.com]
> Sent: woensdag 12 juni 2013 16:13
> To: dev@subversion.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Automatic tree conflicts resolution during svn update
>
> On 12.06.2013 15:42, Bert Huijben wrote:
> >
On 12.06.2013 15:42, Bert Huijben wrote:
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Branko Čibej [mailto:br...@wandisco.com]
>> Sent: woensdag 12 juni 2013 15:20
>> To: dev@subversion.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: Automatic tree conflicts resolution during svn updat
On 06/12/2013 06:57 PM, Johan Corveleyn wrote:
On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 3:25 PM, Stefan Sperling wrote:
On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 03:04:56PM +0200, Johan Corveleyn wrote:
Okay, but doesn't "postpone" still needs to have a well defined
behavior (and probably "as good as possible"), even if only fo
On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 03:27:58PM +0200, Johan Corveleyn wrote:
> I'd say, just edit the moved file with the incoming content, embedded
> in conflict markers, just like what we do for text conflicts. That, I
> think, would be as good as possible.
That's basically what updating the move is doing a
> -Original Message-
> From: Branko Čibej [mailto:br...@wandisco.com]
> Sent: woensdag 12 juni 2013 15:20
> To: dev@subversion.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Automatic tree conflicts resolution during svn update
>
> On 12.06.2013 08:47, Bert Huijben wrote:
> >
On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 3:25 PM, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 03:04:56PM +0200, Johan Corveleyn wrote:
>> Okay, but doesn't "postpone" still needs to have a well defined
>> behavior (and probably "as good as possible"), even if only for
>> supporting the --accept=postpone comma
On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 03:04:56PM +0200, Johan Corveleyn wrote:
> Okay, but doesn't "postpone" still needs to have a well defined
> behavior (and probably "as good as possible"), even if only for
> supporting the --accept=postpone command line option?
What is "as good as possible"?
The --accept
opment'
>> Subject: Re: Automatic tree conflicts resolution during svn update
>>
>> Bert Huijben wrote:
>>
>>>> -Original Message-
>>>> From: Johan Corveleyn [mailto:jcor...@gmail.com]
>>>> Sent: dinsdag 11 juni 201
On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 1:57 PM, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 01:34:37PM +0200, Johan Corveleyn wrote:
>> Can't we improve this? (not talking about emergency fixing 1.8.x, but
>> thinking longer term). Can't we put the incoming edits "somewhere", so
>> the user can do something
On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 02:59:26PM +0400, Danil Shopyrin wrote:
> The new prompt menu makes a great improvement. The most important part
> is that 'apply edit' action is marked as 'recommended'.
I've gone one step further and removed the non-recommended option
from the prompt. It now looks like th
On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 01:34:37PM +0200, Johan Corveleyn wrote:
> Can't we improve this? (not talking about emergency fixing 1.8.x, but
> thinking longer term). Can't we put the incoming edits "somewhere", so
> the user can do something useful (manually) with them? Perhaps put
> them in the moved-
On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 12:59 PM, Danil Shopyrin wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 4:12 PM, Stefan Sperling wrote:
>> I think the problem with 'svn' is that the menu options were too hard
>> to figure out. After some discussion with Ivan, I've tweaked the conflict
>> prompt menu for clarity in thi
On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 4:12 PM, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> I think the problem with 'svn' is that the menu options were too hard
> to figure out. After some discussion with Ivan, I've tweaked the conflict
> prompt menu for clarity in this commit: http://svn.apache.org/r1491762
>
> Does this change
On 06/11/2013 05:42 PM, Stefan Sperling wrote:
On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 07:21:19PM +0400, Danil Shopyrin wrote:
The current draft of the Subversion 1.8 Release Notes announces
automatic tree conflicts resolution for locally moved files and
directories. But it seems that this feature does not actu
On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 08:47:32AM +0200, Bert Huijben wrote:
> At the time we are resolving the BASE nodes at the original location have
> been updated to the target revision, but the place that the code has been
> moved to is still at the old revision.
>
> Doing nothing keeps you in a state wher
> -Original Message-
> From: Julian Foad [mailto:julianf...@btopenworld.com]
> Sent: woensdag 12 juni 2013 00:28
> To: Bert Huijben
> Cc: Stefan Sperling; 'Johan Corveleyn'; 'Subversion Development'
> Subject: Re: Automatic tree conflicts resoluti
On 06/12/2013 12:28 AM, Julian Foad wrote:
>>> > FYI, this is what the new output looks like:
>>> >
>>> > $ svn up -r3
>>> > Updating '.':
>>> >C alpha
>>> > At revision 3.
>>> > Summary of conflicts:
>>> > Tree conflicts: 1
>>> > Tree conflict on 'alpha'
>>> >> local file moved
Bert Huijben wrote:
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Johan Corveleyn [mailto:jcor...@gmail.com]
>> Sent: dinsdag 11 juni 2013 23:37
>> To: Subversion Development
>> Subject: Re: Automatic tree conflicts resolution during svn update
>>
>>
> -Original Message-
> From: Johan Corveleyn [mailto:jcor...@gmail.com]
> Sent: dinsdag 11 juni 2013 23:37
> To: Subversion Development
> Subject: Re: Automatic tree conflicts resolution during svn update
>
> On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 4:27 PM, Stefan Sperling wrot
On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 4:27 PM, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 02:12:14PM +0200, Stefan Sperling wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 07:21:19PM +0400, Danil Shopyrin wrote:
>> > The current draft of the Subversion 1.8 Release Notes announces
>> > automatic tree conflicts resolutio
On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 02:12:14PM +0200, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 07:21:19PM +0400, Danil Shopyrin wrote:
> > The current draft of the Subversion 1.8 Release Notes announces
> > automatic tree conflicts resolution for locally moved files and
> > directories. But it seems th
On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 07:21:19PM +0400, Danil Shopyrin wrote:
> The current draft of the Subversion 1.8 Release Notes announces
> automatic tree conflicts resolution for locally moved files and
> directories. But it seems that this feature does not actually work in
> RC2. The detailed reproductio
25 matches
Mail list logo
