Re: stricter text conflicts in 1.10
On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 01:58:13PM +0200, Johan Corveleyn wrote: > On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 4:03 PM, Bert Huijbenwrote: > > Feel free to revert my patch until we find a way to limit the consequences. > > I expect that we also need to fix a few testcases in separate revisions. > > OK, done in r1795861 (revert of r1731699) and followup in r1795871 to > re-adjust the ruby tests. Thanks Johan!
Re: stricter text conflicts in 1.10
On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 4:03 PM, Bert Huijbenwrote: > Feel free to revert my patch until we find a way to limit the consequences. > I expect that we also need to fix a few testcases in separate revisions. OK, done in r1795861 (revert of r1731699) and followup in r1795871 to re-adjust the ruby tests. -- Johan
RE: stricter text conflicts in 1.10
Feel free to revert my patch until we find a way to limit the consequences. I expect that we also need to fix a few testcases in separate revisions. Bert Sent from Mail for Windows 10 From: Johan Corveleyn Sent: dinsdag 16 mei 2017 12:17 To: Subversion Development Cc: Stefan Fuhrmann; Bert Huijben Subject: Re: stricter text conflicts in 1.10 On Sat, May 13, 2017 at 10:38 PM, Stefan Fuhrmann <stef...@apache.org> wrote: > On 09.05.2017 12:14, Stefan Sperling wrote: >> >> I have seen several instances of proposals in our STATUS file where I >> cannot merge without text conflicts because I am using a trunk client. >> >> I suppose most of us use 1.9.x clients to do such merges, because >> otherwise there would be a lot more backport branches in STATUS when >> nominations get added, and before I run into such a conflict. >> >> This is probably due to the stricter text conflict checks added in >> r1731699. >> If so, are we really sure that we want to make the new behaviour the >> default? >> I can imagine that in organizations with a diverse SVN client install base >> this change will cause a lot of misunderstandings and confusion among >> users. >> >> And with the conflict resolver we are trying to make tree conflicts less >> painful. Now, at the same time text conflicts have become a lot more >> painful >> than they used to be. I don't think this is going to be a good sell. >> > I'm strongly against producing additional text conflicts. > My feeling is that 1.9 (1.8?) already produces more of > those than prior releases did and it annoys me. > > If we missed a reasonable corner case - by all means > get that fixed. But don't break the reasonably well > working cases. +1. Unless someone has an idea how to improve on r1731699 [1] to avoid "unnecessary conflicts", I guess we should revert it. Bringing back the edge case ("controversial behavior discussed in 2003") that r1731699 fixed is probably the lesser of two evils, compared to the additional conflicts it introduces. Bert, WDYT? [1] http://svn.apache.org/r1731699 -- Johan
Re: stricter text conflicts in 1.10
On Sat, May 13, 2017 at 10:38 PM, Stefan Fuhrmannwrote: > On 09.05.2017 12:14, Stefan Sperling wrote: >> >> I have seen several instances of proposals in our STATUS file where I >> cannot merge without text conflicts because I am using a trunk client. >> >> I suppose most of us use 1.9.x clients to do such merges, because >> otherwise there would be a lot more backport branches in STATUS when >> nominations get added, and before I run into such a conflict. >> >> This is probably due to the stricter text conflict checks added in >> r1731699. >> If so, are we really sure that we want to make the new behaviour the >> default? >> I can imagine that in organizations with a diverse SVN client install base >> this change will cause a lot of misunderstandings and confusion among >> users. >> >> And with the conflict resolver we are trying to make tree conflicts less >> painful. Now, at the same time text conflicts have become a lot more >> painful >> than they used to be. I don't think this is going to be a good sell. >> > I'm strongly against producing additional text conflicts. > My feeling is that 1.9 (1.8?) already produces more of > those than prior releases did and it annoys me. > > If we missed a reasonable corner case - by all means > get that fixed. But don't break the reasonably well > working cases. +1. Unless someone has an idea how to improve on r1731699 [1] to avoid "unnecessary conflicts", I guess we should revert it. Bringing back the edge case ("controversial behavior discussed in 2003") that r1731699 fixed is probably the lesser of two evils, compared to the additional conflicts it introduces. Bert, WDYT? [1] http://svn.apache.org/r1731699 -- Johan
Re: stricter text conflicts in 1.10
On 09.05.2017 12:14, Stefan Sperling wrote: I have seen several instances of proposals in our STATUS file where I cannot merge without text conflicts because I am using a trunk client. I suppose most of us use 1.9.x clients to do such merges, because otherwise there would be a lot more backport branches in STATUS when nominations get added, and before I run into such a conflict. This is probably due to the stricter text conflict checks added in r1731699. If so, are we really sure that we want to make the new behaviour the default? I can imagine that in organizations with a diverse SVN client install base this change will cause a lot of misunderstandings and confusion among users. And with the conflict resolver we are trying to make tree conflicts less painful. Now, at the same time text conflicts have become a lot more painful than they used to be. I don't think this is going to be a good sell. I'm strongly against producing additional text conflicts. My feeling is that 1.9 (1.8?) already produces more of those than prior releases did and it annoys me. If we missed a reasonable corner case - by all means get that fixed. But don't break the reasonably well working cases. -- Stefan^2.
Re: stricter text conflicts in 1.10
On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 12:14 PM, Stefan Sperlingwrote: > I have seen several instances of proposals in our STATUS file where I > cannot merge without text conflicts because I am using a trunk client. > > I suppose most of us use 1.9.x clients to do such merges, because > otherwise there would be a lot more backport branches in STATUS when > nominations get added, and before I run into such a conflict. > > This is probably due to the stricter text conflict checks added in r1731699. > If so, are we really sure that we want to make the new behaviour the default? > I can imagine that in organizations with a diverse SVN client install base > this change will cause a lot of misunderstandings and confusion among users. > > And with the conflict resolver we are trying to make tree conflicts less > painful. Now, at the same time text conflicts have become a lot more painful > than they used to be. I don't think this is going to be a good sell. I agree. These conflicts seem unnecessary and that will hurt SVN's usability. Now, r1731699 [1] also apparently fixed a real issue, reported by a user long ago. So imho the questions are: * Was that really an issue, or more a case of "difference of opinion on possible behaviour for an edge case"? * If it was an issue, is there another way to fix it, or to improve the fix, so it doesn't introduce these unnecessary conflicts. On IRC yesterday Bert said: "There should be ways to improve this further... and if this becomes a real problem we should revert the change. I would like to see that original case fixed, but I not at all costs." So, can we discuss this further to find a good solution? How to proceed? [1] http://svn.apache.org/r1731699 -- Johan
Re: stricter text conflicts in 1.10
I know for a fact that UX is already a major decision point around choosing Subversion over modern alternatives. What have we done in the past? A staggered +1 release model seems worthy where we announce it in version A [with it disabled] to allow users to "opt-in". If the value is there, users will jump on it. We can measure it via feedback. At some point down the line, opt-in folds into "default" and strict is the new sheriff in town. This is a very successful way of introducing incremental customer facing changes in the SaaS world - that is proven. On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 12:14 PM, Stefan Sperlingwrote: > I have seen several instances of proposals in our STATUS file where I > cannot merge without text conflicts because I am using a trunk client. > > I suppose most of us use 1.9.x clients to do such merges, because > otherwise there would be a lot more backport branches in STATUS when > nominations get added, and before I run into such a conflict. > > This is probably due to the stricter text conflict checks added in r1731699. > If so, are we really sure that we want to make the new behaviour the default? > I can imagine that in organizations with a diverse SVN client install base > this change will cause a lot of misunderstandings and confusion among users. > > And with the conflict resolver we are trying to make tree conflicts less > painful. Now, at the same time text conflicts have become a lot more painful > than they used to be. I don't think this is going to be a good sell. -- Jacek Materna CTO Assembla 210-410-7661