On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 9:55 AM, Johan Corveleyn <jcor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 3:04 PM, Stefan Sperling <s...@elego.de> wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 03, 2011 at 02:59:25PM +0200, Johan Corveleyn wrote: > >> On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 2:35 PM, Johan Corveleyn <jcor...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> > On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 2:16 PM, Kyle Leber <kyle.le...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> >> I set the mime-type to "application/octet-stream" in the working copy > prior > >> >> to merge and this fixed the problem. No more heavy CPU usage or > excessive > >> >> time spent on the file. > >> > > >> > I'm glad it helped. Apart from the performance, it's important that > >> > svn does this merge the "binary way", because as you said line-based > >> > merges are not correct for this file. > >> > >> It may also interest you (and other readers of this thread) that there > >> is an open enhancement request for making text-merges take the same > >> shortcut as binary-merges (if mine == merge-left then set merged := > >> merge-right), to avoid expensive diffing [1]. But that hasn't been > >> addressed yet. > >> > >> > >> [1] http://subversion.tigris.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4009 : Big > >> trivial text files merged MUCH slower than binary - pls optimize. > >> > > > > I think we should also file an issue about the problem discussed > > in this thread. svn should take properties on the left/right side of the > > merge into account when determining whether to treat a file as binary. > > I guess it should run the binary merge if any of left, right, or the > > target are marked as binary. > > Yes, maybe you're right. I don't know the specifics / historics of > this behavior (maybe there is a reason for this?). But on the surface > it looks like it should indeed do a binary merge if either one of > left, right or target is marked as binary. > > Even if #4009 would be addressed, it would still make a difference in > the situation where the shortcut-condition (mine == merge-left) > doesn't hold. In that case, I think the "binary-merge" would always > flag a conflict (because it can't do a line-based merge). Is that also > the behavior we want f.i. if only merge-left (or only merge-right) > were marked as binary, and all the other "players" are marked as text? > I guess it's the safest thing to do ... > > -- > Johan > Did someone already file this issue, or do you need me to? I have never done this before, but can certainly make an attempt if this is what's needed. - Kyle
