Re: stricter text conflicts in 1.10

2017-05-23 Thread Stefan Sperling
On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 01:58:13PM +0200, Johan Corveleyn wrote: > On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 4:03 PM, Bert Huijben wrote: > > Feel free to revert my patch until we find a way to limit the consequences. > > I expect that we also need to fix a few testcases in separate revisions. > > OK, done in r179

Re: stricter text conflicts in 1.10

2017-05-23 Thread Johan Corveleyn
On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 4:03 PM, Bert Huijben wrote: > Feel free to revert my patch until we find a way to limit the consequences. > I expect that we also need to fix a few testcases in separate revisions. OK, done in r1795861 (revert of r1731699) and followup in r1795871 to re-adjust the ruby te

RE: stricter text conflicts in 1.10

2017-05-16 Thread Bert Huijben
Huijben Subject: Re: stricter text conflicts in 1.10 On Sat, May 13, 2017 at 10:38 PM, Stefan Fuhrmann wrote: > 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 becau

Re: stricter text conflicts in 1.10

2017-05-16 Thread Johan Corveleyn
On Sat, May 13, 2017 at 10:38 PM, Stefan Fuhrmann wrote: > 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

Re: stricter text conflicts in 1.10

2017-05-13 Thread Stefan Fuhrmann
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

Re: stricter text conflicts in 1.10

2017-05-10 Thread Johan Corveleyn
On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 12:14 PM, 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

Re: stricter text conflicts in 1.10

2017-05-09 Thread Jacek Materna
I know for a fact that UX is already a major decision point around choosing Subversion over modern alternatives. What have we done in the past? A staggered +1 release model seems worthy where we announce it in version A [with it disabled] to allow users to "opt-in". If the value is there, users wi

stricter text conflicts in 1.10

2017-05-09 Thread Stefan Sperling
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,