1 | Resolving Tree Conflicts |
---|
2 | ======================== |
---|
3 | |
---|
4 | ############################################################################ |
---|
5 | ### NOTE: This file describes what I'd like, not what Subversion does. ### |
---|
6 | ### - Julian Foad, 2008 ### |
---|
7 | ############################################################################ |
---|
8 | |
---|
9 | Resolution of tree conflicts includes: |
---|
10 | |
---|
11 | (i) A known state of the WC after the conflict is raised. |
---|
12 | |
---|
13 | (ii) Constructing the desired result from the conflicted state. |
---|
14 | |
---|
15 | (iii) Marking as resolved (both "svn resolve" and interactive). |
---|
16 | |
---|
17 | |
---|
18 | I. STATE OF THE WC AFTER CONFLICT IS RAISED |
---|
19 | =========================================== |
---|
20 | |
---|
21 | When a tree conflict is raised, the "old" and "theirs" and "mine" versions |
---|
22 | should be stored locally in the WC in such a way that |
---|
23 | |
---|
24 | (a) Subversion can turn one of them into a final outcome when told |
---|
25 | svn resolve --accept=theirs TARGET |
---|
26 | |
---|
27 | (b) the user can examine them and combine them to create a final outcome, |
---|
28 | using commands like |
---|
29 | svn proplist TARGET.theirs |
---|
30 | svn merge TARGET.theirs OTHERFILE TARGET |
---|
31 | |
---|
32 | WC State is defined in terms of what file content and what scheduling is |
---|
33 | stored for each of ".working" (the active WC file/dir during resolving), |
---|
34 | ".mine" (the previous working file/dir, as preserved for reference), and |
---|
35 | ".theirs" (the type and resulting content of the incoming change). |
---|
36 | |
---|
37 | The expected state for each case is defined in the "WC State" sections inside |
---|
38 | the "Resolution Recipes" section. |
---|
39 | |
---|
40 | Principles |
---|
41 | ---------- |
---|
42 | |
---|
43 | * When "svn update" or "svn switch" raises a tree conflict, it shall update |
---|
44 | the victim's "base" version from OLD to THEIRS, and leave the "working" |
---|
45 | version in a state that would be committable (but for the explicit check |
---|
46 | that prevents committing an item marked as in conflict) and that, if |
---|
47 | committed, would restore the item to how it looked in "mine". This may |
---|
48 | involve changing the scheduling of the item, e.g. to be re-added if "update" |
---|
49 | applied a delete. |
---|
50 | |
---|
51 | When "svn merge" raises a tree conflict, it shall not change the working |
---|
52 | content or scheduling of the victim. |
---|
53 | |
---|
54 | * An update from rX to rY followed by an update back to rX should have no |
---|
55 | overall effect on the local modifications scheduled in the WC. Likewise a |
---|
56 | switch to a different URL@REV and a switch back to the original one. |
---|
57 | Likewise a merge followed by a merge of the reverse change. |
---|
58 | |
---|
59 | Q. How do we store the "theirs" tree in the WC, especially in the case where |
---|
60 | it's a tree and needs to be constructed anew because it comes (as an Add or |
---|
61 | Mod) onto a WC item that's Del or not present? What I mean is to persuade |
---|
62 | the normal "update" or "merge" code paths to construct a new WC directory |
---|
63 | named "TARGET.theirs" on the fly and then recurse into it applying the |
---|
64 | incoming mods. |
---|
65 | |
---|
66 | (Need to list the cases where constructing such a new WC tree will be |
---|
67 | necessary.) |
---|
68 | |
---|
69 | |
---|
70 | II. CONSTRUCTING THE DESIRED RESULT |
---|
71 | =================================== |
---|
72 | |
---|
73 | For cases where the user needs to merge the two conflicting changes (as |
---|
74 | opposed to choosing just one and ignoring the other), we need: |
---|
75 | |
---|
76 | * Recipes for the user to follow |
---|
77 | - see the "Tree Conflict Resolution Recipes" section. |
---|
78 | |
---|
79 | * Enhanced facilities for merging changes from conflicting partial results |
---|
80 | into the desired result. |
---|
81 | - see the "Arbitrary Merge Facility Required" section. |
---|
82 | |
---|
83 | |
---|
84 | Tree Conflict Resolution Recipes |
---|
85 | ================================ |
---|
86 | |
---|
87 | This section sets out, for each type of tree conflict, the resolutions that I |
---|
88 | expect would be commonly wanted, either giving a useful result directly or as |
---|
89 | building blocks for more complex resolutions. |
---|
90 | |
---|
91 | The aim is to provide in each of the selected cases a sufficiently clear |
---|
92 | recipe for a user to resolve most tree conflicts that they encounter. Such a |
---|
93 | user is expected to be fairly proficient in using Subversion but not to have |
---|
94 | any knowledge of the way tree conflicts are handled internally. |
---|
95 | |
---|
96 | Under each type of conflict are the following subsections: |
---|
97 | |
---|
98 | "WC State" describes the state in which the WC should be left when the |
---|
99 | conflict is raised, according to the principles set out in section I. |
---|
100 | |
---|
101 | "Some use cases" lists some likely use cases by which a user might encounter |
---|
102 | such a conflict, concentrating on cases that want a resolution other than |
---|
103 | "THEIRS" or "MINE". |
---|
104 | |
---|
105 | "Options" lists resolution options that ought to be available. The |
---|
106 | resolution options "THEIRS" and "MINE" should be available in every case (so |
---|
107 | that a user can resolve a whole tree at once with one of those options) and |
---|
108 | should be implemented internally. Any other options listed here may be |
---|
109 | recipes for the user to apply manually. These recipes are starting from the |
---|
110 | state in which the WC should be left by Subversion after raising a conflict. |
---|
111 | |
---|
112 | The "WC State" subsection is intended as design requirements, not for the end |
---|
113 | user. I have not yet attempted to implement this as part of tree-conflict |
---|
114 | detection, and have no idea to what extent this is currently achieved in the |
---|
115 | tree-conflicts branch. |
---|
116 | |
---|
117 | The other two subsections are intended as the basis of material for end users |
---|
118 | to read. |
---|
119 | |
---|
120 | Principles |
---|
121 | ---------- |
---|
122 | |
---|
123 | * We shall assume the ability to examine the source-left ("old") and source- |
---|
124 | right ("theirs") and target ("mine") tree states as well as the source |
---|
125 | diffs. |
---|
126 | |
---|
127 | In a merge, we shall not assume or attempt to make use of any ancestral |
---|
128 | relationship between the target and the source. |
---|
129 | |
---|
130 | Renames and Replacements |
---|
131 | ------------------------ |
---|
132 | |
---|
133 | Incoming rename: |
---|
134 | |
---|
135 | An incoming rename is treated here as its two constituent actions - an |
---|
136 | incoming delete and an incoming add - separately. |
---|
137 | |
---|
138 | Incoming replacement: |
---|
139 | |
---|
140 | In an incoming replacement, the delete is assumed to come before the add. |
---|
141 | (Currently, they may sometimes come the wrong way around. I have not |
---|
142 | analyzed the cases in which this can happen, nor the consequences.) |
---|
143 | |
---|
144 | Scheduled rename: |
---|
145 | |
---|
146 | With a scheduled rename, each of the names (the old and the new) will be |
---|
147 | treated separately as a potential victim of a tree conflict. |
---|
148 | |
---|
149 | Scheduled replacement: |
---|
150 | |
---|
151 | A scheduled replacement is treated mainly the same as a scheduled deletion, |
---|
152 | because any incoming change is assumed to apply to the old object that was |
---|
153 | deleted rather than to the new object that replaced it. |
---|
154 | |
---|
155 | Where the ability to schedule a replacement of one node kind with another is |
---|
156 | implied, this ability may not be supported (and currently is not supported) |
---|
157 | by the working copy library. Such cases will therefore be unsupported. This |
---|
158 | is not seen as a deficiency inherent in tree conflict handling, but as a |
---|
159 | separate deficiency that restricts tree conflict handling in certain cases. |
---|
160 | |
---|
161 | Meaning of "Choose Theirs" and "Choose Mine" |
---|
162 | -------------------------------------------- |
---|
163 | |
---|
164 | There is a subtle difference between the meanings of "Choose Theirs" and |
---|
165 | "Choose Mine" as applied to an update or switch compared with when |
---|
166 | the terms are applied to a merge. |
---|
167 | |
---|
168 | For update and switch, the final state resulting from the incoming change is |
---|
169 | already existing in the history of the branch we're working on, and is going |
---|
170 | to be our WC's new "base" version, so we can't choose to "ignore" this |
---|
171 | incoming change. The request to "Choose Mine" means "Schedule the item to be |
---|
172 | changed from its new base state back to how my version of it looked before |
---|
173 | this operation". This may involve changing the scheduling of the item. The |
---|
174 | request to "Choose Theirs" simply means "Discard my pending changes so as to |
---|
175 | keep their version of it". |
---|
176 | |
---|
177 | For a merge, however, the final state of the incoming change is not going to |
---|
178 | be the new base state of the branch we're working on, and so we _can_ choose |
---|
179 | to ignore it if we so wish. Also, "my" version is a combination of historical |
---|
180 | and working-copy changes, so we cannot in general choose to ignore this, we |
---|
181 | can only schedule changes that reverse it. In a merge, then, "Choose Mine" |
---|
182 | means "Leave my version of the item as it is" (which does not involve any |
---|
183 | change of scheduling), while "Choose Theirs" means "Overwrite my version with |
---|
184 | a copy of Their version of the item" (which may involve scheduling an add or |
---|
185 | delete). The potential alternative meaning, "Make Their change", is not |
---|
186 | viable: it is what Subversion already tried to do, and it resulted in the very |
---|
187 | conflict we're now trying to resolve. |
---|
188 | |
---|
189 | |
---|
190 | Recipes |
---|
191 | ======= |
---|
192 | |
---|
193 | up/sw: Add onto Add |
---|
194 | ------------------- |
---|
195 | |
---|
196 | WC State: |
---|
197 | .working: sched=Normal/Replace, content=.mine |
---|
198 | .mine: sched=Add[w/hist], content=Something |
---|
199 | .theirs: action=Add[w/hist], content=Something |
---|
200 | |
---|
201 | Some use cases: |
---|
202 | - I have already applied the patch - their item is identical to mine. |
---|
203 | -> want to do it just once -> THEIRS. |
---|
204 | - Two different new items happened to be given the same name. |
---|
205 | -> accept theirs & rename mine -> RENAME-MINE. |
---|
206 | - I was doing roughly the same thing but the item is a bit different. |
---|
207 | -> merge the two items -> manual 2-way merge (or 3-way if both are w/hist |
---|
208 | and it's the same copy-from source). |
---|
209 | |
---|
210 | Options: |
---|
211 | THEIRS: As usual, like "svn revert TARGET". |
---|
212 | MINE: My content as a scheduled modification, or as a scheduled replace* |
---|
213 | if "my" node-kind (or copy-from?) differs. |
---|
214 | RENAME-MINE: Add "my" content under a different name, and then accept |
---|
215 | "their" add: |
---|
216 | - Choose a new name for mine. |
---|
217 | - svn rename TARGET NEWNAME |
---|
218 | - svn revert TARGET |
---|
219 | |
---|
220 | If identical (node-kind, content, props, copyfrom-info?): |
---|
221 | Recommend choosing THEIRS. |
---|
222 | |
---|
223 | |
---|
224 | up/sw: Del onto Del |
---|
225 | ------------------- |
---|
226 | |
---|
227 | WC State: |
---|
228 | .working: sched=unversioned, content=None |
---|
229 | .mine: sched=Del, content=None |
---|
230 | .theirs: action=Del, content=None |
---|
231 | |
---|
232 | Some use cases: |
---|
233 | - Already applied the patch |
---|
234 | -> want to do it just once -> THEIRS. |
---|
235 | - Renamed to two different names |
---|
236 | -> want to undo Their renaming and make it like Mine, as if we had a |
---|
237 | "Choose Mine" option that worked on whole rename operations. -> RENAME. |
---|
238 | |
---|
239 | Options: |
---|
240 | THEIRS: As usual (but has no effect in this case) |
---|
241 | MINE: As usual (but has no effect in this case) |
---|
242 | RENAME: |
---|
243 | - svn rename THEIR-NEW-NAME MY-NEW-NAME |
---|
244 | And take care to notice if there were any modifications made at the same |
---|
245 | time as the renames; if so, these might need merging. |
---|
246 | |
---|
247 | Note: In an update or switch, THEIRS and MINE are from the same OLD base, so |
---|
248 | there is no possibility that the item we are deleting locally is different |
---|
249 | from the item the incoming change is deleting. |
---|
250 | |
---|
251 | |
---|
252 | up/sw: Mod onto Del |
---|
253 | ------------------- |
---|
254 | |
---|
255 | WC State: |
---|
256 | .working: sched=Del, content=None |
---|
257 | .mine: sched=Del, content=None |
---|
258 | .theirs: action=Mod, content=Something |
---|
259 | |
---|
260 | Some use cases: |
---|
261 | - Locally renamed |
---|
262 | -> want to apply the incoming mod to a different item -> ELSEWHERE. |
---|
263 | |
---|
264 | Options: |
---|
265 | THEIRS: As usual. |
---|
266 | MINE: Leave it deleted. |
---|
267 | ELSEWHERE1: Apply their mod onto my renamed item. (Mine is the master.) |
---|
268 | - Determine a way to obtain the incoming diff and apply it to the new |
---|
269 | name, e.g. one of these: |
---|
270 | - svn merge -r OLDREV:NEWREV TARGET(URL?) NEWNAME |
---|
271 | (should be possible for "up" always, "sw" never, "merge" sometimes) |
---|
272 | - svn merge -r old:theirs TARGET NEWNAME [*1] |
---|
273 | ELSEWHERE2: Reapply my Rename [+mod] onto theirs. (Theirs is the master.) |
---|
274 | - mv NEWNAME TMP |
---|
275 | - svn revert NEWNAME / rm -rf NEWNAME |
---|
276 | - Move TARGET.theirs to NEWNAME. Here's one way to do that: |
---|
277 | - svn resolve --accept=theirs TARGET |
---|
278 | - svn rename TARGET NEWNAME |
---|
279 | - svn resolve --accept=mine TARGET |
---|
280 | - svn merge TARGET@old TMP@working NEWNAME [*1] |
---|
281 | |
---|
282 | |
---|
283 | up/sw: Del onto Mod |
---|
284 | ------------------- |
---|
285 | |
---|
286 | WC State: |
---|
287 | .working: sched=Add, content=.mine |
---|
288 | .mine: sched=Normal, content=Something |
---|
289 | .theirs: action=Del, content=None |
---|
290 | |
---|
291 | Some use cases: |
---|
292 | - The incoming change is (part of) a rename |
---|
293 | -> want to transfer my local mod to the renamed item -> MOVE-MY-MODS. |
---|
294 | |
---|
295 | Options: |
---|
296 | THEIRS: As usual. |
---|
297 | MINE: Schedule for Add. |
---|
298 | MOVE-MY-MODS: Reapply my mod onto their renamed item. (Theirs is the master.) |
---|
299 | - Determine their new name. |
---|
300 | - Wait till up/sw has processed the new-named item. |
---|
301 | - svn merge -r OLD:MINE TARGET THEIRNEWNAME [*1] |
---|
302 | - svn revert TARGET |
---|
303 | MOVE-MY-MODS2: Apply their rename[+mod] onto my item. (Mine is the master.) |
---|
304 | - svn merge TARGET@old THEIRNEWNAME TARGET [*1] |
---|
305 | - svn revert THEIRNEWNAME |
---|
306 | - svn rename TARGET THEIRNEWNAME |
---|
307 | |
---|
308 | |
---|
309 | merge: Add onto Something (Identical or Different-Content or Different-Kind) |
---|
310 | ------------------------- |
---|
311 | |
---|
312 | WC State: |
---|
313 | .working: =.mine |
---|
314 | .mine: sched=(not Del), content=Something |
---|
315 | .theirs: action=Add[w/hist?], content=Something |
---|
316 | |
---|
317 | Some use cases: |
---|
318 | Same as for "up/sw: Add onto Add", plus one more: |
---|
319 | - Two different new items happened to be given the same name. |
---|
320 | -> keep mine & rename theirs -> RENAME-THEIRS. |
---|
321 | |
---|
322 | Options: |
---|
323 | THEIRS: Schedule local mods (if any change needed) to replace mine |
---|
324 | with theirs. (If copyfrom differs, should we schedule Replace or not?) |
---|
325 | MINE: (Nothing to do.) |
---|
326 | RENAME-MINE: Add "my" content under a new name, and accept "their" add under |
---|
327 | the original name. (Theirs is the master.) |
---|
328 | - Choose a new name for mine. |
---|
329 | - svn rename TARGET NEWNAME |
---|
330 | - svn resolve --accept=theirs TARGET |
---|
331 | RENAME-THEIRS: Add theirs under a new name. (Mine is the master.) |
---|
332 | - Choose a new name for theirs. |
---|
333 | - svn rename TARGET.theirs NEWNAME [*1] |
---|
334 | - svn resolve --accept=mine TARGET |
---|
335 | |
---|
336 | If identical (node-kind, content, props, copyfrom-info?): |
---|
337 | Recommend choosing THEIRS. |
---|
338 | |
---|
339 | |
---|
340 | merge: Del onto Nothing Here |
---|
341 | ---------------------------- |
---|
342 | |
---|
343 | WC State: |
---|
344 | .working: =.mine |
---|
345 | .mine: sched=(Del/unversioned), content=None |
---|
346 | .theirs: action=Del, content=None |
---|
347 | |
---|
348 | Some use cases: |
---|
349 | - User's process is wrong: maybe something else needed to be merged first. |
---|
350 | -> want to revert this whole merge. |
---|
351 | - Already applied the patch or merged the change without recording the fact. |
---|
352 | -> want to do it once -> MINE. |
---|
353 | - The item being deleted (or renamed) in the source has been renamed in the |
---|
354 | target branch. |
---|
355 | -> want to delete/rename something else -> ELSEWHERE. |
---|
356 | |
---|
357 | Options: |
---|
358 | THEIRS: Nothing to do - same result as MINE. |
---|
359 | MINE: (Nothing to do.) |
---|
360 | ELSEWHERE: Leave TARGET as it is, and |
---|
361 | - Find the new name(s). |
---|
362 | - svn delete MYNEWNAME |
---|
363 | or |
---|
364 | svn rename MYNEWNAME THEIRNEWNAME |
---|
365 | |
---|
366 | |
---|
367 | merge: Del onto Not Same Kind |
---|
368 | ----------------------------- |
---|
369 | |
---|
370 | WC State: |
---|
371 | .working: =.mine |
---|
372 | .mine: sched=(not Del), content=TheOtherKind |
---|
373 | .theirs: action=Del, content=None |
---|
374 | |
---|
375 | Some use cases: |
---|
376 | - User's process is wrong: maybe something else needed to be merged first. |
---|
377 | -> want to revert this whole merge. |
---|
378 | |
---|
379 | Options: |
---|
380 | THEIRS: |
---|
381 | - svn delete TARGET |
---|
382 | MINE: (Nothing to do.) |
---|
383 | |
---|
384 | |
---|
385 | merge: Del onto Not Same Content |
---|
386 | -------------------------------- |
---|
387 | |
---|
388 | WC State: |
---|
389 | .working: =.mine |
---|
390 | .mine: sched=(not Del), content=SameKind |
---|
391 | .theirs: action=Del, content=None |
---|
392 | |
---|
393 | Some use cases: |
---|
394 | - The content was intentionally divergent, and we still want to delete it. |
---|
395 | -> THEIRS. |
---|
396 | - The content was intentionally divergent, and the source node is being |
---|
397 | renamed (and possibly modified at the same time). |
---|
398 | -> Apply the incoming rename (possibly +mod) onto mine -> RENAME. |
---|
399 | |
---|
400 | Options: |
---|
401 | THEIRS: |
---|
402 | - svn delete TARGET |
---|
403 | MINE: (Nothing to do.) |
---|
404 | RENAME1: Apply their rename [+mod] onto mine. (Mine is the master.) |
---|
405 | - Find the incoming new name. |
---|
406 | - Wait till the new name has been processed (added). |
---|
407 | - svn merge TARGET.old THEIRNEWNAME TARGET [*1] |
---|
408 | - svn revert THEIRNEWNAME |
---|
409 | - svn rename TARGET THEIRNEWNAME |
---|
410 | RENAME2: Reapply my mods onto their renamed item. (Theirs is the master.) |
---|
411 | - Find the incoming new name. |
---|
412 | - Wait till the new name has been processed (added). |
---|
413 | - svn merge -r old:mine TARGET THEIRNEWNAME [*1] |
---|
414 | - svn resolve --accept=theirs TARGET |
---|
415 | |
---|
416 | |
---|
417 | merge: Mod onto Nothing Here |
---|
418 | ---------------------------- |
---|
419 | |
---|
420 | WC State: |
---|
421 | .working: =.mine |
---|
422 | .mine: sched=(Del/unversioned), content=None |
---|
423 | .theirs: action=Mod, content=Something |
---|
424 | |
---|
425 | Some use cases: |
---|
426 | - The item was renamed locally |
---|
427 | -> apply the incoming mod elsewhere -> ELSEWHERE. |
---|
428 | |
---|
429 | Options: |
---|
430 | THEIRS: Re-schedule the target to come back. |
---|
431 | - copy TARGET.theirs TARGET |
---|
432 | - svn add TARGET |
---|
433 | MINE: (Nothing to do.) |
---|
434 | ELSEWHERE1: Apply their mod onto mine. (Mine is the master.) |
---|
435 | - Find the new name. |
---|
436 | - Wait till the new name has been processed (added). |
---|
437 | - svn merge -r OLD:THEIRS TARGET NEWNAME [*1] |
---|
438 | ELSEWHERE2: Apply my rename[+mod] onto Theirs. (Theirs is the master.) |
---|
439 | - svn merge -r BASE:WC NEWNAME TARGET.theirs [*1] |
---|
440 | - mv TARGET.theirs NEWNAME |
---|
441 | |
---|
442 | |
---|
443 | merge: Mod onto Not Same Kind |
---|
444 | ----------------------------- |
---|
445 | |
---|
446 | WC State: |
---|
447 | .working: =.mine |
---|
448 | .mine: sched=(not Del), content=TheOtherKind |
---|
449 | .theirs: action=Mod, content=Something |
---|
450 | |
---|
451 | Options: |
---|
452 | THEIRS: Not supported. Throw an error. (Want to schedule the target to |
---|
453 | replace with theirs, but WC doesn't support this.) |
---|
454 | MINE: (Nothing to do.) |
---|
455 | |
---|
456 | |
---|
457 | Note [*1]: These commands are not yet supported. |
---|
458 | |
---|
459 | |
---|
460 | Arbitrary Merge Facility Required |
---|
461 | ================================= |
---|
462 | |
---|
463 | To enable the user to resolve a "Rename onto Mod" or "Mod onto Rename" |
---|
464 | conflict efficiently and flexible, we need the ability to merge the difference |
---|
465 | between two arbitrary WC items into another WC item. The two source items: |
---|
466 | - may have different names; |
---|
467 | - may be related by copyfrom info in one that in some way refers to the |
---|
468 | other; |
---|
469 | - may be pre-resolution conflict results like TARGET.mine or TARGET@mine. |
---|
470 | |
---|
471 | Two ways this could be achieved: |
---|
472 | |
---|
473 | 1. Make use of history-sensitive merging by referring to the two items through |
---|
474 | special revision kinds "old" "theirs" "mine": |
---|
475 | |
---|
476 | svn merge -r old:theirs TARGET NEWNAME |
---|
477 | |
---|
478 | 2. Use non-history-sensitive merging on arbitrary files |
---|
479 | "<TARGET>.old" "<TARGET>.theirs" "<TARGET>.mine": |
---|
480 | |
---|
481 | svn merge TARGET.old TARGET.theirs NEWNAME |
---|
482 | |
---|
483 | Q. How can we most easily implement an extension of "svn merge" that achieves |
---|
484 | a copyfrom-history-sensitive diff (between WC items) rather than an unaware |
---|
485 | diff? |
---|
486 | |
---|
487 | |
---|
488 | III. MARKING AS RESOLVED |
---|
489 | ======================== |
---|
490 | |
---|
491 | Primary APIs: |
---|
492 | |
---|
493 | libsvn_wc/adm_ops.c:resolve_conflict_on_entry() |
---|
494 | |
---|
495 | Pre-tree-conflicts, the "resolve" functions in client through to WC layers all |
---|
496 | end up calling resolve_conflict_on_entry() on each item. It marks all text |
---|
497 | conflicts and property conflicts on the item as resolved. It also can select |
---|
498 | and copy into place one of the available file-text choices, but doesn't appear |
---|
499 | to have any such support for property conflicts. |
---|
500 | |
---|
501 | On the tree conflicts branch, (till branch@{2008-05-29} at least) this |
---|
502 | function assumes it will be passed the path to the parent dir of some conflict |
---|
503 | victims, and it simply clears tree conflict data about all victims from the |
---|
504 | entries file. |
---|
505 | |
---|
506 | Plan |
---|
507 | ---- |
---|
508 | |
---|
509 | Separate the different functions that resolve_conflict_on_entry() performs, |
---|
510 | making it more modular and "orthogonal". |
---|
511 | |
---|
512 | Make the tree conflict functions operate on one victim rather than on a whole |
---|
513 | parent directory having conflicts on any number of victims. |
---|
514 | |
---|
515 | Make these new functions public so that the caller can compose the various |
---|
516 | actions (copying, marking as resolved, notifying, and recursing) in whatever |
---|
517 | order it wants. |
---|
518 | |
---|
519 | Create the following new functions: |
---|
520 | |
---|
521 | * Copy one of the simple outcomes (old, mine, theirs) onto the target. |
---|
522 | |
---|
523 | select_conflict_outcome(path, svn_wc_conflict_choice_t, ...); |
---|
524 | select_tree_conflict_outcome(victim_path, svn_wc_conflict_choice_t, ...); |
---|
525 | |
---|
526 | - Copies the user's choice onto the "working" version of the item. |
---|
527 | - For tree conflicts, also includes changing the scheduling of the item. |
---|
528 | - This operation, and certainly the choice part of it, is logically above |
---|
529 | the WC layer, except for knowledge of where the files to choose from are |
---|
530 | stored. |
---|
531 | |
---|
532 | |
---|
533 | * Mark conflicts as resolved on a (victim) path. |
---|
534 | |
---|
535 | svn_wc_mark_conflict_resolved(path, ...); |
---|
536 | |
---|
537 | - Mark text and property conflicts on one item as resolved. |
---|
538 | |
---|
539 | svn_wc_mark_tree_conflict_resolved(victim_path, ...); |
---|
540 | |
---|
541 | - Mark the tree conflict on one victim as resolved. |
---|
542 | |
---|
543 | |
---|
544 | * Support for resolver callback? - where/how? |
---|
545 | |
---|
546 | |
---|