Filed http://subversion.tigris.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4155
> -----Original Message----- > From: Daniel Shahaf [mailto:d...@daniel.shahaf.name] > Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2012 4:51 AM > To: Stephen Butler > Cc: Varnau, Steve (Seaquest R&D); users@subversion.apache.org; Brackett, > Faye > Subject: Re: Merge bug -- svn:keywords and conflict resolution > > Stephen Butler wrote on Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 09:35:27 +0200: > > > > > > On Mar 29, 2012, at 1:24 , Varnau, Steve (Seaquest R&D) wrote: > > > > > I did not get any responses on this bug report, neither confirming > nor denying. > > > > We're an open community, as you know. If something is neither > > confirmed nor denied, then nothing happened. :-) > > > > I almost missed the rest of your reply, Stephen. (I've left it quoted > below; tldr: "Yes, please file an issue" :-) ) > > > > So I guess the next step is to file an issue? > > > > > > -Steve > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > > >> From: Varnau, Steve (Seaquest R&D) > > [...] > > >> ### Here's the bug -- why do both sides of conflict show same > content? > > >> cat keyfile > > >> <<<<<<< .working > > >> $Date: 2012-03-26 10:09:19 -0700 (Mon, 26 Mar 2012) $ $Revision: 5 > > >> $ ======= > > >> $Date: 2012-03-26 10:09:19 -0700 (Mon, 26 Mar 2012) $ $Revision: 5 > > >> $ > > >>>>>>>>> .merge-right.r6 > > >> some changes > > >> $Id$ > > >> > > > > FWIW, with 1.6.17 the working file has different content, including a > > visible conflict in the first line. > > > > [[[ > > $ cat keyfile > > <<<<<<< .working > > $Date: 2012-03-29 09:15:48 +0200 (Thu, 29 Mar 2012) $ $Revision: 5 $ > > ======= > > $Date: 2012-03-29 09:15:46 +0200 (Thu, 29 Mar 2012) $ $Revision: 4 $ > > >>>>>>> .merge-right.r6 > > some changes > > $Id: keyfile 5 2012-03-29 07:15:48Z steve $ ]]] > > > > The other files are the same as with 1.7. > > > > In view of the incoming change to the svn:keywords property, from > > "Date Revision" to "Id", this conflict (even in 1.6) doesn't make much > sense to me. > > > > After the merge, with svn:keywords set to "Id", if we were to re-apply > > the keyword translation, the conflict in the first line wouldn't > > exist. In the working copy and in^/trunk@6, the first line is simply > > "$Date$ $Revision$", untranslated. > > > > I'm not sure why the first line remains expanded despite the change to > > svn:keywords. So, yes, please file an issue. > > > > Regards, > > Steve Butler > > > > > >
