Re: [PATCH] Fix issue #3686 - executable bit not set during merge
Gavin Beau Baumanis <gavinb <at> thespidernet.com>
2011-03-01 08:24:56 GMT
Ping. This submission has received no new comments.
On 22/02/2011, at 8:31 AM, Daniel Becroft wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 13, 2011 at 2:15 AM, Daniel Shahaf <d.s <at> daniel.shahaf.name> wrote:
> Daniel Becroft wrote on Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 08:37:12 +1000:
> > On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 7:31 AM, Daniel Shahaf <d.s <at> daniel.shahaf.name>wrote:
> >
> > > Daniel Becroft wrote on Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 06:27:31 +1000:
> > > > On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 11:26 PM, Daniel Shahaf <d.s <at> daniel.shahaf.name
> > > >wrote:
> > > > > Daniel Becroft wrote on Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 07:21:30 +1000:
> > > > > > <at> <at> -1118,6 +1120,33 <at> <at> merge_binary_file(svn_skel_t **work_items,
> > > > > > + /* Attempt to merge the binary file. At the moment, we can only
> > > > > > + handle the special case: if the LEFT side of the merge is equal
> > > > > > + to WORKING, then we can copy RIGHT directly. */
> > > > >
> > > > > The comment in libsvn_client mentioned two special case, what happened
> > > > > to the other one? Does the existing wc code already handle it? (I'd be
> > > > > surprised)
> > > > >
> > > > > - Alternately, if the 'left' side of the merge doesn't exist
> > > in
> > > > > - the repository, and the 'right' side of the merge is
> > > > > - identical to the WC, pretend we did the merge (a no-op).
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > I've been trying to think of a valid scenario for this to occur, but I
> > > can't
> > > > seem to think of one. There's a comment further up:
(Continue reading)