On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 12:36 PM, Johan Corveleyn <jcor...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> How does one adopt / merge the update from the repo into local >>>> unversioned directories? >>>> Using R marks the directory for deletion. >>>> >>>> # svn up /etc >>>> Updating '/etc': >>>> C /etc/php5 >>>> A /etc/php5/cli >>>> A /etc/php5/cli/conf.d >>>> A /etc/php5/cgi >>>> A . >>>> Updated to revision 55. >>>> Tree conflict on '/etc/php5' >>>> > local dir unversioned, incoming dir add upon update >>>> Select: (r) mark resolved, (p) postpone, (q) quit resolution, (h) help: h >>>> >>>> (r) - accept current working copy state >>>> (p) - resolve the conflict later [postpone] >>>> (q) - postpone all remaining conflicts >>>> (h) - show this help (also '?') >>>> Words in square brackets are the corresponding --accept option arguments. >>>> >>>> Select: (r) mark resolved, (p) postpone, (q) quit resolution, (h) help: >>> >>> When I know beforehand that I have a local unversioned directory that >>> maps to a repos-directory that will be incoming when I update, I use >>> the '--force' option for 'svn up'. That avoids the tree conflicts, and >>> sort of "integrates" the existing files into your working copy. >>> >>> From 'svn help update': >>> [[[ >>> --force : handle unversioned obstructions as changes >>> ]]] >> >> Nice, how come the interactive interface doesn't provide this option? >> Or for it to be the default, especially for directories themselves? > > (Please keep the list in cc, unless you explicitly want to private-mail me) > > You mean: why can't the interactive conflict resolution (after the > update has been run, and tree conflicts for the entire subtree were > encountered) not do the same as what 'svn up --force' would have done? > > I'm not sure, but I think technically it's different for the conflict > resolver than for the update driver. The conflict resolver might not > have the same information at that point anymore, or not the same > capabilities. But I'm just guessing here. > > As a matter of fact, right now work is ongoing on trunk for improved > tree conflict resolution for SVN 1.10 (if you're interested, you might > want to follow the dev@ list). I'm not sure if the trunk version of > the conflict resolver would have offered this capability (or if it > will still grow this capability). > > Maybe Stefan Sperling (in cc) or others working on the tree conflict > resolver have more insight on this ...?
Stefan? For directories it seems like a no-brainer to avoid the conflict. -- Olaf
