intenance headache than it's worth.
--
Travis
>
>-Original Message-
>From: Travis Brown [mailto:trav...@travisbrown.ca]
>Sent: Saturday, August 24, 2013 5:58 PM
>To: Les Mikesell; Ryan Schmidt; Branko ??ibej; Subversion;
>d...@subversion.apache.org; John Maher
>
On Sun, Aug 25, 2013 at 11:46:11AM +0200, Stefan Sperling claimed:
>Looking at just one use case is not going to help us in the long term.
>And I don't think we should hard-code conflict resolution behaviour in
>the update/switch/merge logic.
>
>During 1.8 development, I did experiment with hard-co
On Sat, Aug 24, 2013 at 09:53:14PM +0200, Stefan Sperling claimed:
>On Sat, Aug 24, 2013 at 12:26:41PM -0700, Travis Brown wrote:
>> That's just overcomplicating the issue. This doesn't even need to
>> become a tree conflict.
>
>In my opinion it does need to be fl
rmissions.
--
Travis
[[[
If an unversioned directory exists when an versioned directory of the same name
is incoming, don't create a tree conflict. Instead coopt the existing directory
and all the unversioned objects within.
* subversion/libsvn_wc/update_editor.c
(add_directory
On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 04:16:49PM -0500, Les Mikesell claimed:
>The contents of the file are irrelevant. The point is that it has to
>either be versioned so svn can delete it knowing that you can get it
>back, and then delete the containing directory that is really the
>issue, or you have to del
