Hi Stefan and thanks for the reply. (sorry about the top-posting, yahoo's webmail isn't made for proper mail usage)
Good idea to try the non-interactive and then resolve after, that seems to get me out of the bind I got into, but I'll probably tell our users to stick to 1.9 for the time being. I'm not sure I'll be able to recreate a test for the strange behavior since it may have to do with this being a very large and very old repo that I'm working on. But I'll give it a try as soon as I have some time to spare and post the result here (or the failure to repeat it in a simple script). /Chris -------------------------------------------- On Wed, 4/25/18, Stefan Sperling <s...@apache.org> wrote: Subject: Re: Surprising behavior with 1.10 tree conflict resolver To: "Chris" <devnullacco...@yahoo.se> Cc: users@subversion.apache.org Date: Wednesday, April 25, 2018, 1:37 PM On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 11:04:13AM +0000, Chris wrote: > I'm trying out subversion 1.10 and it's going both good and bad. > > The good thing is that new interactive conflict resolver works absolutely brilliantly for text conflicts. Great job everyone! > The bad news is that I can't resolve my tree conflicts. > > Let me prefix this with saying that the corporate svn server I'm using is badly setup and slow as molasses (*), which may play a part here, but even without that, I don't understand the behavior I am seeing. It is probably correct as-is, but unfortunately seems to make svn 1.10 impossible to use for me. > > I'm trying a merge from trunk to my branch on a project with this kind of chronology for a conflict: > * branch created at r105778 (the file "foo" exists on trunk) > * "foo" modified on trunk in r106352 > * "foo" moved and renamed on branch in r106610 > * merge trunk to branch in rev 107369 (first merge to the branch) > > But when it hits "foo" in the resolver, it prints: > > Searching tree conflict details for foo in repository: > Checking r<xxx>... > > Where <xxx> started at recent changes in "foo" but is going backwards to > revisions long before the branch root, i.e. revisions before 105778. I don't > understand how any of these should affect the merge resolution since they are > older than when I created the branch so I'm guaranteed to already have those > revisions (?). I even *think* it is continuing further back than when the foo > was added to trunk. And this is taking a really really long time with our > server. We're talking minutes per revision, even causing timeout from the > server so I can't resolve the conflict. Shouldn't it have stopped going > backwards beyond the revisions that I branched off on? (the "--stop-on-copy" > revision) Your expectations are not unreasonable but keep in mind that the resolver works in the context of one particular file or directory. When it traces history back and traverses copies it cannot tell whether those copies were creating a new branch or copy an item within a branch; in the data model, these twoI cases look 100% alike. We will need a more concrete example to confirm the problem and if possible fix the behaviour. Could you try to write a script which starts by creating a fresh and empty repository, adds files and directories as necessary, and creates this specific tree conflict situation where it traces history further back than necessary? That would help us a lot. As a workaround, if this is a blocking issue for you, you could run problematic merges with --non-interactive. This will postpone all conflicts and suppress the interactive resolver. This allows you to resolve the problematic conflict manually as you would have done in SVN 1.9. Once the problematic conflict has been resolved, you can resolve all remaining conflicts interactively by running 'svn resolve'. Problems like this are not expected but unfortunately not inevitable either. The resolver is new in this release and has not seen much real world testing, even though we gave the community some early opportunities in form of alpha releases and release candidates. Feedback such as yours is very much appreciated because we cannot improve the resolver without it. Thanks, Stefan -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
