2011/10/15 Lluís Batlle i Rossell <[email protected]> > On Sat, Oct 15, 2011 at 06:32:53AM -0400, Richard Hipp wrote: > > I will entertain arguments to move the merge-conflict reporting changes > back > > into trunk. But I need to hear some arguments in favor of that change > > before moving forward with it. > > In my last reply, I did not mention arguments; I was a bit in a hurry. Here > I > go explaining a bit the changes. > > I find it dangerous, if fossil overwrites a file I had in my filesystem, > and it > does not tell me specially about the overwrite. I know you understand the > situation, but maybe others in the list not: >
This is a big deal. I certainly did not know about this behavior. > If you have a file (let's say readme.txt) in your check out directory, but > not > under version control (an extra file), and "fossil update" operation > brings > in a file with the same name, it will report "ADD readme.txt" among the > changes, will overwrite your readme.txt file, and mention zero conflicts. > > It's true that "fossil undo" will restore it, but first you have to notice > that > it has been totally overwritten before you run any other undoable > operation. > > I made 'fossil update' and 'fossil merge' report a conflict for this > operation > in [60c6197c8a] and [bb49278a8a]. > > I also made 'fossil merge' report the number of coflicts. 'fossil update' > already did that, but 'fossil merge' not. Change [e1a7a1d9e2]. > I hope these changes make it into the official release. Thanks. > I also fixed some tests, that don't work anymore in trunk: merge5 and > merge_renames. > > All this code is not in trunk anymore, waiting opinions from other users. > > Regards, > Lluís. > _______________________________________________ > fossil-users mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users >
_______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
