On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 11:53 PM, Mark Phippard <markp...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 25, 2012, at 3:14 PM, Stefan Sperling <s...@elego.de> wrote: > >> On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 09:03:47PM +0200, Stefan Sperling wrote: >>> on the same working copy. E.g. a 1.7 client might run into tree conflicts >>> which it cannot understand because a 1.8 client flagged a conflict involving >>> a move. I believe we should bump to avoid such problems. >> >> FYI, here is what this looks like: >> >> With trunk: >> >> $ svn status >> ! C alpha >>> local moved away and edited, incoming delete upon update >> A + alpha2 >> Summary of conflicts: >> Tree conflicts: 1 >> >> With 1.7.x: >> >> $ svn status >> subversion/svn/status-cmd.c:344: (apr_err=155016) >> subversion/svn/util.c:981: (apr_err=155016) >> subversion/libsvn_client/status.c:490: (apr_err=155016) >> subversion/libsvn_wc/status.c:2421: (apr_err=155016) >> subversion/libsvn_wc/status.c:2421: (apr_err=155016) >> subversion/libsvn_wc/status.c:1200: (apr_err=155016) >> subversion/svn/status.c:210: (apr_err=155016) >> subversion/svn/status.c:210: (apr_err=155016) >> subversion/libsvn_wc/wc_db.c:5814: (apr_err=155016) >> subversion/libsvn_wc/wc_db.c:5814: (apr_err=155016) >> subversion/libsvn_wc/tree_conflicts.c:249: (apr_err=155016) >> subversion/libsvn_wc/tree_conflicts.c:130: (apr_err=155016) >> svn: E155016: Unknown enumeration value in tree conflict description >> >> I don't see a way to avoid this problem for 1.7 clients, apart from either >> reverting the tree conflict description changes or bumping the format. > > What about the move feature? What happens when 1.7 client commits a move or > partial move that was made with 1.8?
Agreed, that was a bad idea. But "the other way around", where a 1.8 client carries around 1.7 compatibility code to keep working with 1.7-format working copies (upgrade being optional (to enable local-move-tracking for instance)) is still a sensible idea I think. Although it would definitely be a lot of work, there is no argument there ... -- Johan
