subversion-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Olaf van der Spek>
Subject Re: Adopting unversioned directory on svn up
Date Tue, 29 Nov 2016 18:23:21 GMT
On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 12:36 PM, Johan Corveleyn <> wrote:
>>>> How does one adopt / merge the update from the repo into local
>>>> unversioned directories?
>>>> Using R marks the directory for deletion.
>>>> # svn up /etc
>>>> Updating '/etc':
>>>>    C /etc/php5
>>>>    A /etc/php5/cli
>>>>    A /etc/php5/cli/conf.d
>>>>    A /etc/php5/cgi
>>>>    A .
>>>> Updated to revision 55.
>>>> Tree conflict on '/etc/php5'
>>>>    > local dir unversioned, incoming dir add upon update
>>>> Select: (r) mark resolved, (p) postpone, (q) quit resolution, (h) help: h
>>>>   (r)  - accept current working copy state
>>>>   (p)  - resolve the conflict later  [postpone]
>>>>   (q)  - postpone all remaining conflicts
>>>>   (h)  - show this help (also '?')
>>>> Words in square brackets are the corresponding --accept option arguments.
>>>> Select: (r) mark resolved, (p) postpone, (q) quit resolution, (h) help:
>>> When I know beforehand that I have a local unversioned directory that
>>> maps to a repos-directory that will be incoming when I update, I use
>>> the '--force' option for 'svn up'. That avoids the tree conflicts, and
>>> sort of "integrates" the existing files into your working copy.
>>> From 'svn help update':
>>> [[[
>>>   --force                  : handle unversioned obstructions as changes
>>> ]]]
>> Nice, how come the interactive interface doesn't provide this option?
>> Or for it to be the default, especially for directories themselves?
> (Please keep the list in cc, unless you explicitly want to private-mail me)
> You mean: why can't the interactive conflict resolution (after the
> update has been run, and tree conflicts for the entire subtree were
> encountered) not do the same as what 'svn up --force' would have done?
> I'm not sure, but I think technically it's different for the conflict
> resolver than for the update driver. The conflict resolver might not
> have the same information at that point anymore, or not the same
> capabilities. But I'm just guessing here.
> As a matter of fact, right now work is ongoing on trunk for improved
> tree conflict resolution for SVN 1.10 (if you're interested, you might
> want to follow the dev@ list). I'm not sure if the trunk version of
> the conflict resolver would have offered this capability (or if it
> will still grow this capability).
> Maybe Stefan Sperling (in cc) or others working on the tree conflict
> resolver have more insight on this ...?


For directories it seems like a no-brainer to avoid the conflict.


View raw message