Julian Foad <julianf...@apache.org> writes: > Julian Foad wrote: >> The bug seems to be that 'svn patch' fails to apply any patch of >> this form, that tries to change a property value from empty to >> non-empty. > > I committed a test for this in http://svn.apache.org/r1834628
I'm confused, you are treating as '' special? Suppose an existing property P has value 'foo'. Should a patch that adds P with value 'bar' simply merge and change the existing 'foo' to 'bar'? I think a conflict is the correct outcome. You seem to be saying that if 'foo' is '' then the conflict should not occur. Given an existing property P with value 'foo' a patch that adds P with value 'foo' would apply cleanly, it's an "already applied" patch. A patch that modifes P from 'foo' to 'bar' would also apply cleanly, but this latter patch would conflict if P does not exist. I think the original question here is whether svn:executable should be special and whether the add of svn:executable with value V1 should merge with an existing svn:executable with a different value V2 and automatically resolve to '*'. If it should merge, should there be any restrictions? Should V1='foo' and V2='bar' resolve to '*'? Or only if one of V1, V2 is '' and the other is '*'? Or something else? I think a conflict is the right answer and there is no bug. I think your new test is wrong. -- Philip
