Hi Johan and thanks for the reply. I made a very simple reproduction script and attached it to this mail, the behavior seems to be easy to reproduce. Haven't made a reproducton script before so I'm not sure how you want the issue to be explained, but I first did the behavior that I think is incorrect and did a status+echo and then the same from a subdirectory with a second status+echo.
If you instead wanted me to make a bug report on the tracker, let me know.
/Chris
--------------------------------------------
On Fri, 4/13/18, Johan Corveleyn <jcor...@gmail.com> wrote:
Subject: Re: Inconsistent merge on subdirectory behavior?
To: "Chris" <devnullacco...@yahoo.se>
Cc: "Subversion" <users@subversion.apache.org>
Date: Friday, April 13, 2018, 2:49 PM
On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 4:56 PM,
Chris <devnullacco...@yahoo.se>
wrote:
> I wanted to reverse-merge some accidental
changes on a subdirectory on my branch and svn really
confuses me in this. Is the below behavior from subversion
intended or have I stubled on a bug?
>
> I wanted to reverse-merge revision 1000 on
all the files in the directory "sub/dir", below
illustrated with only one file.
>
> wcroot> svn diff --summarize -c 1000
sub/dir
> M sub/dir/foobar.txt
> wcroot> svn merge -c -1000 sub/dir
> --- Recording mergeinfo for reverse merge
of r1000 into '.':
> U .
> So the file sub/dir/foobar.txt is not
reverse-merged (and the merge info is elided even though the
output does not say so)
>
> I tried a few different versions of this
with e.g. -r 1000:999 with identical results.
>
> Then I did the
following, which I thought would be more of the same:
>
> wcroot> cd
foo/bar
> wcroot/foo/bar> svn merge -c
-1000 .
> --- Reverse-merging r1000 into
'.':
> U
sub/dir/foobar.txt
> --- Recording
mergeinfo for reverse merge of r1000 into '.':
> G .
> --- Eliding
mergeinfo from '.':
> U .
>
> So now it does what I
wanted to.
>
> Is it
intended that merge should do different things if I use
"." or "sub/dir" as my WCTARGET? I find
it confusing and it was mostly luck that I stumbled on the
right solution. "svn help merge" does not seem to
indicate that these two use cases should be any different,
but I may misread it.
> Btw, this was
done with "svn, version 1.9.5 (r1770682)"
>
> TIA,
> Chris
Hi Chris,
That
does seem strange. However it's quite hard to diagnose
this from
your description alone, because
there are a lot of things that can
play a
role in the merge algorithm.
Would you be able to come up with a
reproduction script, or even just
a
transcript of you reproducing the issue, starting from a
clean
repository ('svnadmin create';
...)?
For a reproduction
script you could use the repro-template.sh or
repro-template.bat linked from here:
https://subversion.apache.org/docs/community-guide/issues.html#reporting-bugs
Thanks,
--
Johan
repro-template.sh
Description: application/shellscript
