On 17.04.2016 14:20, Stefan Sperling wrote: > On Sun, Apr 17, 2016 at 01:30:26PM +0200, Branko Čibej wrote: >> On 17.04.2016 18:54, Stefan Fuhrmann wrote: >>> stsp wrote: >>> >>>> * STATUS: r1721285 nomination needs a backport branch >>> This is what I get: >>> >>> $ svn --version >>> svn, version 1.7.9 (r1462340) >>> compiled Oct 15 2013, 12:40:34 >>> ... >>> >>> $ svn merge -c1721285 ^/subversion/trunk . >>> --- Merging r1721285 into '.': >>> U subversion/libsvn_fs_fs/caching.c >>> --- Recording mergeinfo for merge of r1721285 into '.': >>> U . >>> >>> Maybe a typo on your part? >> >> Worksforme with 1.9.3 on the 1.9.x branch. >> >> -- Brane > Funny. It works with 1.9.x indeed. > > Now try the same with a trunk client. > Is this a regression? Or a new feature? > > $ svn merge -cr1721285 ^/subversion/trunk > --- Merging r1721285 into '.': > C subversion/libsvn_fs_fs/caching.c > --- Recording mergeinfo for merge of r1721285 into '.': > U . > Summary of conflicts: > Text conflicts: 1 > Conflict discovered in file 'subversion/libsvn_fs_fs/caching.c'. > Select: (p) postpone, (df) show diff, (e) edit file, (m) merge, > (mc) my side of conflict, (tc) their side of conflict, > (s) show all options: q > Summary of conflicts: > Text conflicts: 1 > $ svn --version > svn, version 1.10.0-dev (under development) > compiled Apr 15 2016, 10:34:49 on x86_64-unknown-openbsd5.9
So what's the actual conflict? Paste it here, then we can decide if it's a bug or a feature. :) -- Brane
