[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [subversive-dev] issue #353875 -- replace-with-revision on locked file fails even if file isn't being changed.

Hello,

I've read the report some time ago, there were some questions I did not have answers to and that is why I didn't started implementing this request:
1) currently "replace with" actions performs replacement only for the content of the files, but not for the properties (merge will cause a change in properties). Which way is better - I'm not sure.
2) Reverse merge is a nice thing but how it will go - I can't predict:
     - it could produce conflicts
     - it could skip some resources due to merge tracking information
     - there could be some other issues I can't tell from the get-go

Regarding your solution with catching exception and comparing files - it should work, but could run really slow if any big file where to happen being locked (and there are quite a chance for this with the binary files we're talking about).

That's why I haven't applied your patch and left it untouched until I've found some alternatives. But thinking back - it's not like there are a lot of ways to solve the problem, so your solution is probably the best at the moment and I should include it into the next build.

If there is some other points I should pay attention to - please tell me.

Best regards,
Alexander Gurov.

26.09.2011 16:57, Neels J Hofmeyr пишет:
Hi Subversive devs,

I'd like to enquire about issue #353875, simply because we have a commitment
with a client to do something about this bug, which annoys them on a regular
basis. ( https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=353875 )

Is there anything else I can do to facilitate a fix being released in
upstream? Bundling a custom Subversive is (unfortunately) not an option for
our client.

- If this needs more thinking to deeply fix the problem, is it an option to
have this or a similar "surface fix" in upstream in the meantime?
( https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/attachment.cgi?id=200910&action=""> )

- Do you have some hints for me, so I can improve my patch so that you will
agree to commit it?

- Or hints for a different approach altogether, which I can try to implement
for/with you?

We would be delighted to collaborate on this, to keep our customers happy.

Thanks,
~Neels

On 08/04/2011 08:29 PM, Alexander Gurov wrote:
I've read the task you've made and I think it contains some nice ideas. I
can't say I will apply the patch as it is, there is a need to think about it
a little more. And may be there is a reason to rethink the decision
regarding the issue 294610. Anyway thank you for ideas and your overall
analysis of the situation.
-----
Neels Hofmeyr | Senior Developer
elego Software Solutions GmbH | http://www.elego.de
Gustav-Meyer-Allee 25 | Building 12 - BIG | 13355 Berlin, Germany
fon +49 30 2345 8696 | fax +49 30 2345 8695
CEO Olaf Wagner | District Court Berlin-Charlottenburg HRB 77719



_______________________________________________
subversive-dev mailing list
subversive-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/subversive-dev