Hi Stefan, Thank you for you response. Yes, I would be advising our developers to revert such changes after examining them. But this seems to be a bug in the sense that tree conflicts are not differentiating the missing-due-to-sparse-checkout with missing-due-to-deletion.
And just to give a background, the reason we use sparse checkout is so that developers can save space and time by not checking out the projects they don't need. But need to merge from trunk from time to time to stay current. Thanks. Srinivas Kotla | Configuration Management | BroadSoft | +1 240.364.5260 | sko...@broadsoft.com | www.broadsoft.com -----Original Message----- From: Stefan Sperling [mailto:s...@elego.de] Sent: Monday, February 22, 2010 5:51 PM To: Srinivas Kotla Cc: users@subversion.apache.org Subject: Re: SVN 1.6.x - Merge using sparse checkout resulting in tree conflicts On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 02:38:47PM -0800, Srinivas Kotla wrote: > Hi, > > Did anyone run into issues with merge resulting in tree conflicts when > using sparse checkouts? > > Some directories that were not checkedout in the working copy were > marked as tree conflicts after the merge (local delete, incoming edit > upon merge). Either merge into a non-sparse working copy, or if you are happy with the directories missing in your merge result (caution, this is unusual and most likely *not* what you want) just mark the conflict as resolved. Stefan
