[Svnmerge] [PATCH] preserving mods to renamed files/directories

[lsuvkne at onemodel.org]

>>> On Thu, Jun 21, 2007 dlr at collab.net wrote: 
> http://www.orcaware.com/pipermail/svnmerge/2007-January/000821.html

Thanks for the info.
 
> Fixing these broken tests would be a great starting point for making
> yourself at home in the Subversion development community.

Sounds great. I'm looking forward to the further info on that.


>> It's not necessarily pretty but seems to reduce the risk for our most common
>> scenarios.  There are some scenarios that I know it doesn't support, best
>> practices, tips from our internal wiki that I can share later if there's
>> interest.
> I understand.  Have you read
> <http://svn.collab.net/repos/svn/trunk/notes/tree-conflicts.txt> ?
> 
> While I do see a compelling need for this behavioral change, this does
> strike me as a lot of complexity to add to svnmerge.py.  Perhaps after
> the change sets in your patch have been teased apart, it will seem
> more manageable.

OK. Thanks for that link.  I think of these changes to svnmerge.py as a
workaround until something like the tree conflicts problem is solved, whether
via issue #2282 (http://subversion.tigris.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2282),
#2685  (http://subversion.tigris.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2685), or real
'atomic renames'.  I am trying to learn more about the scope of #2685 to see
if it's something I can do myself in the time I can commit, but either way it
seems like our organization needs something in an earlier timeframe, than what
seems likely for fixing tree collisions, hence this workaround.  I thought
others might be able to use it too.  But if not, that's OK especially if one
of the other solutions could be done relatively soon.  But I'll try to break
up the patches too.

I'll also work on trying to understand issue #2685 
(http://subversion.tigris.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2685) better.

Am I correct in speculating that any fix for tree collisions is likely to come
sometime after 1.5.0?

Thanks again!

-Luke