On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 08:59:32AM +0100, Julian Foad wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-08-24, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 06:40:39PM +0100, Julian Foad wrote:
> > > You seem to be talking only about the case where the (locally added)
> > > target is the root of the whole merge, and sayi
On Tue, 2010-08-24, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 06:40:39PM +0100, Julian Foad wrote:
> > You seem to be talking only about the case where the (locally added)
> > target is the root of the whole merge, and saying that lack of ancestral
> > relationship between the source node an
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 06:40:39PM +0100, Julian Foad wrote:
> You seem to be talking only about the case where the (locally added)
> target is the root of the whole merge, and saying that lack of ancestral
> relationship between the source node and this target node doesn't
> matter. Maybe the use
On Mon, 2010-08-23 at 18:40 +0100, Julian Foad wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-08-23 at 18:43 +0200, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 04, 2010 at 12:32:06PM -0400, Paul Burba wrote:
> > > On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 12:14 PM, Julian Foad
> > > wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 2010-08-04 at 11:23 -0400, Paul Burba w
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 12:35 PM, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> One more question: In case a file/directory has been copied, does that
> affect its implicit mergeinfo in any way?
Definitely, a copy *has* implicit mergeinfo, whereas a local addition has none.
Think of it like this:
Do a URL-to-WC co
On Mon, 2010-08-23 at 18:43 +0200, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 04, 2010 at 12:32:06PM -0400, Paul Burba wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 12:14 PM, Julian Foad
> > wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2010-08-04 at 11:23 -0400, Paul Burba wrote:
> > >> On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 10:52 AM, Julian Foad
> >
On Wed, Aug 04, 2010 at 12:32:06PM -0400, Paul Burba wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 12:14 PM, Julian Foad wrote:
> > On Wed, 2010-08-04 at 11:23 -0400, Paul Burba wrote:
> >> On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 10:52 AM, Julian Foad
> >> wrote:
> >> > if the tree conflict detection policy is "relaxed", and
On Wed, Aug 04, 2010 at 11:23:00AM -0400, Paul Burba wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 10:52 AM, Julian Foad wrote:
> > Stefan Sperling wrote:
> >> It does not seem possible right now to merge into locally added
> >> files, because the Subversion assumes that the merge target will
> >> always have a
On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 12:14 PM, Julian Foad wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-08-04 at 11:23 -0400, Paul Burba wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 10:52 AM, Julian Foad
>> wrote:
>> > Stefan Sperling wrote:
>> >> It does not seem possible right now to merge into locally added
>> >> files, because the Subversi
On Wed, 2010-08-04 at 11:23 -0400, Paul Burba wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 10:52 AM, Julian Foad wrote:
> > Stefan Sperling wrote:
> >> It does not seem possible right now to merge into locally added
> >> files, because the Subversion assumes that the merge target will
> >> always have a corres
On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 10:29 AM, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> I haven't run make check yet either, in fear that lots of merge
> tests will just start to fail on me when I try.
I forget to mention in my earlier response, I ran [ra_serf] x
[merge_tests.py | merge_reintegrate_tests.py |
merge_tree_conf
On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 10:52 AM, Julian Foad wrote:
> Stefan Sperling wrote:
>> It does not seem possible right now to merge into locally added
>> files, because the Subversion assumes that the merge target will
>> always have a corresponding URL in the repository, and errors out.
>>
>> With a bit
Stefan Sperling wrote:
> It does not seem possible right now to merge into locally added
> files, because the Subversion assumes that the merge target will
> always have a corresponding URL in the repository, and errors out.
>
> With a bit of special-casing during error handling in a few places,
>
13 matches
Mail list logo
