Resolving Tree Conflicts
========================
############################################################################
### NOTE: This file describes what I'd like, not what Subversion does. ###
### - Julian Foad, 2008 ###
############################################################################
Resolution of tree conflicts includes:
(i) A known state of the WC after the conflict is raised.
(ii) Constructing the desired result from the conflicted state.
(iii) Marking as resolved (both "svn resolve" and interactive).
I. STATE OF THE WC AFTER CONFLICT IS RAISED
===========================================
When a tree conflict is raised, the "old" and "theirs" and "mine" versions
should be stored locally in the WC in such a way that
(a) Subversion can turn one of them into a final outcome when told
svn resolve --accept=theirs TARGET
(b) the user can examine them and combine them to create a final outcome,
using commands like
svn proplist TARGET.theirs
svn merge TARGET.theirs OTHERFILE TARGET
WC State is defined in terms of what file content and what scheduling is
stored for each of ".working" (the active WC file/dir during resolving),
".mine" (the previous working file/dir, as preserved for reference), and
".theirs" (the type and resulting content of the incoming change).
The expected state for each case is defined in the "WC State" sections inside
the "Resolution Recipes" section.
Principles
----------
* When "svn update" or "svn switch" raises a tree conflict, it shall update
the victim's "base" version from OLD to THEIRS, and leave the "working"
version in a state that would be committable (but for the explicit check
that prevents committing an item marked as in conflict) and that, if
committed, would restore the item to how it looked in "mine". This may
involve changing the scheduling of the item, e.g. to be re-added if "update"
applied a delete.
When "svn merge" raises a tree conflict, it shall not change the working
content or scheduling of the victim.
* An update from rX to rY followed by an update back to rX should have no
overall effect on the local modifications scheduled in the WC. Likewise a
switch to a different URL@REV and a switch back to the original one.
Likewise a merge followed by a merge of the reverse change.
Q. How do we store the "theirs" tree in the WC, especially in the case where
it's a tree and needs to be constructed anew because it comes (as an Add or
Mod) onto a WC item that's Del or not present? What I mean is to persuade
the normal "update" or "merge" code paths to construct a new WC directory
named "TARGET.theirs" on the fly and then recurse into it applying the
incoming mods.
(Need to list the cases where constructing such a new WC tree will be
necessary.)
II. CONSTRUCTING THE DESIRED RESULT
===================================
For cases where the user needs to merge the two conflicting changes (as
opposed to choosing just one and ignoring the other), we need:
* Recipes for the user to follow
- see the "Tree Conflict Resolution Recipes" section.
* Enhanced facilities for merging changes from conflicting partial results
into the desired result.
- see the "Arbitrary Merge Facility Required" section.
Tree Conflict Resolution Recipes
================================
This section sets out, for each type of tree conflict, the resolutions that I
expect would be commonly wanted, either giving a useful result directly or as
building blocks for more complex resolutions.
The aim is to provide in each of the selected cases a sufficiently clear
recipe for a user to resolve most tree conflicts that they encounter. Such a
user is expected to be fairly proficient in using Subversion but not to have
any knowledge of the way tree conflicts are handled internally.
Under each type of conflict are the following subsections:
"WC State" describes the state in which the WC should be left when the
conflict is raised, according to the principles set out in section I.
"Some use cases" lists some likely use cases by which a user might encounter
such a conflict, concentrating on cases that want a resolution other than
"THEIRS" or "MINE".
"Options" lists resolution options that ought to be available. The
resolution options "THEIRS" and "MINE" should be available in every case (so
that a user can resolve a whole tree at once with one of those options) and
should be implemented internally. Any other options listed here may be
recipes for the user to apply manually. These recipes are starting from the
state in which the WC should be left by Subversion after raising a conflict.
The "WC State" subsection is intended as design requirements, not for the end
user. I have not yet attempted to implement this as part of tree-conflict
detection, and have no idea to what extent this is currently achieved in the
tree-conflicts branch.
The other two subsections are intended as the basis of material for end users
to read.
Principles
----------
* We shall assume the ability to examine the source-left ("old") and source-
right ("theirs") and target ("mine") tree states as well as the source
diffs.
In a merge, we shall not assume or attempt to make use of any ancestral
relationship between the target and the source.
Renames and Replacements
------------------------
Incoming rename:
An incoming rename is treated here as its two constituent actions - an
incoming delete and an incoming add - separately.
Incoming replacement:
In an incoming replacement, the delete is assumed to come before the add.
(Currently, they may sometimes come the wrong way around. I have not
analyzed the cases in which this can happen, nor the consequences.)
Scheduled rename:
With a scheduled rename, each of the names (the old and the new) will be
treated separately as a potential victim of a tree conflict.
Scheduled replacement:
A scheduled replacement is treated mainly the same as a scheduled deletion,
because any incoming change is assumed to apply to the old object that was
deleted rather than to the new object that replaced it.
Where the ability to schedule a replacement of one node kind with another is
implied, this ability may not be supported (and currently is not supported)
by the working copy library. Such cases will therefore be unsupported. This
is not seen as a deficiency inherent in tree conflict handling, but as a
separate deficiency that restricts tree conflict handling in certain cases.
Meaning of "Choose Theirs" and "Choose Mine"
--------------------------------------------
There is a subtle difference between the meanings of "Choose Theirs" and
"Choose Mine" as applied to an update or switch compared with when
the terms are applied to a merge.
For update and switch, the final state resulting from the incoming change is
already existing in the history of the branch we're working on, and is going
to be our WC's new "base" version, so we can't choose to "ignore" this
incoming change. The request to "Choose Mine" means "Schedule the item to be
changed from its new base state back to how my version of it looked before
this operation". This may involve changing the scheduling of the item. The
request to "Choose Theirs" simply means "Discard my pending changes so as to
keep their version of it".
For a merge, however, the final state of the incoming change is not going to
be the new base state of the branch we're working on, and so we _can_ choose
to ignore it if we so wish. Also, "my" version is a combination of historical
and working-copy changes, so we cannot in general choose to ignore this, we
can only schedule changes that reverse it. In a merge, then, "Choose Mine"
means "Leave my version of the item as it is" (which does not involve any
change of scheduling), while "Choose Theirs" means "Overwrite my version with
a copy of Their version of the item" (which may involve scheduling an add or
delete). The potential alternative meaning, "Make Their change", is not
viable: it is what Subversion already tried to do, and it resulted in the very
conflict we're now trying to resolve.
Recipes
=======
up/sw: Add onto Add
-------------------
WC State:
.working: sched=Normal/Replace, content=.mine
.mine: sched=Add[w/hist], content=Something
.theirs: action=Add[w/hist], content=Something
Some use cases:
- I have already applied the patch - their item is identical to mine.
-> want to do it just once -> THEIRS.
- Two different new items happened to be given the same name.
-> accept theirs & rename mine -> RENAME-MINE.
- I was doing roughly the same thing but the item is a bit different.
-> merge the two items -> manual 2-way merge (or 3-way if both are w/hist
and it's the same copy-from source).
Options:
THEIRS: As usual, like "svn revert TARGET".
MINE: My content as a scheduled modification, or as a scheduled replace*
if "my" node-kind (or copy-from?) differs.
RENAME-MINE: Add "my" content under a different name, and then accept
"their" add:
- Choose a new name for mine.
- svn rename TARGET NEWNAME
- svn revert TARGET
If identical (node-kind, content, props, copyfrom-info?):
Recommend choosing THEIRS.
up/sw: Del onto Del
-------------------
WC State:
.working: sched=unversioned, content=None
.mine: sched=Del, content=None
.theirs: action=Del, content=None
Some use cases:
- Already applied the patch
-> want to do it just once -> THEIRS.
- Renamed to two different names
-> want to undo Their renaming and make it like Mine, as if we had a
"Choose Mine" option that worked on whole rename operations. -> RENAME.
Options:
THEIRS: As usual (but has no effect in this case)
MINE: As usual (but has no effect in this case)
RENAME:
- svn rename THEIR-NEW-NAME MY-NEW-NAME
And take care to notice if there were any modifications made at the same
time as the renames; if so, these might need merging.
Note: In an update or switch, THEIRS and MINE are from the same OLD base, so
there is no possibility that the item we are deleting locally is different
from the item the incoming change is deleting.
up/sw: Mod onto Del
-------------------
WC State:
.working: sched=Del, content=None
.mine: sched=Del, content=None
.theirs: action=Mod, content=Something
Some use cases:
- Locally renamed
-> want to apply the incoming mod to a different item -> ELSEWHERE.
Options:
THEIRS: As usual.
MINE: Leave it deleted.
ELSEWHERE1: Apply their mod onto my renamed item. (Mine is the master.)
- Determine a way to obtain the incoming diff and apply it to the new
name, e.g. one of these:
- svn merge -r OLDREV:NEWREV TARGET(URL?) NEWNAME
(should be possible for "up" always, "sw" never, "merge" sometimes)
- svn merge -r old:theirs TARGET NEWNAME [*1]
ELSEWHERE2: Reapply my Rename [+mod] onto theirs. (Theirs is the master.)
- mv NEWNAME TMP
- svn revert NEWNAME / rm -rf NEWNAME
- Move TARGET.theirs to NEWNAME. Here's one way to do that:
- svn resolve --accept=theirs TARGET
- svn rename TARGET NEWNAME
- svn resolve --accept=mine TARGET
- svn merge TARGET@old TMP@working NEWNAME [*1]
up/sw: Del onto Mod
-------------------
WC State:
.working: sched=Add, content=.mine
.mine: sched=Normal, content=Something
.theirs: action=Del, content=None
Some use cases:
- The incoming change is (part of) a rename
-> want to transfer my local mod to the renamed item -> MOVE-MY-MODS.
Options:
THEIRS: As usual.
MINE: Schedule for Add.
MOVE-MY-MODS: Reapply my mod onto their renamed item. (Theirs is the master.)
- Determine their new name.
- Wait till up/sw has processed the new-named item.
- svn merge -r OLD:MINE TARGET THEIRNEWNAME [*1]
- svn revert TARGET
MOVE-MY-MODS2: Apply their rename[+mod] onto my item. (Mine is the master.)
- svn merge TARGET@old THEIRNEWNAME TARGET [*1]
- svn revert THEIRNEWNAME
- svn rename TARGET THEIRNEWNAME
merge: Add onto Something (Identical or Different-Content or Different-Kind)
-------------------------
WC State:
.working: =.mine
.mine: sched=(not Del), content=Something
.theirs: action=Add[w/hist?], content=Something
Some use cases:
Same as for "up/sw: Add onto Add", plus one more:
- Two different new items happened to be given the same name.
-> keep mine & rename theirs -> RENAME-THEIRS.
Options:
THEIRS: Schedule local mods (if any change needed) to replace mine
with theirs. (If copyfrom differs, should we schedule Replace or not?)
MINE: (Nothing to do.)
RENAME-MINE: Add "my" content under a new name, and accept "their" add under
the original name. (Theirs is the master.)
- Choose a new name for mine.
- svn rename TARGET NEWNAME
- svn resolve --accept=theirs TARGET
RENAME-THEIRS: Add theirs under a new name. (Mine is the master.)
- Choose a new name for theirs.
- svn rename TARGET.theirs NEWNAME [*1]
- svn resolve --accept=mine TARGET
If identical (node-kind, content, props, copyfrom-info?):
Recommend choosing THEIRS.
merge: Del onto Nothing Here
----------------------------
WC State:
.working: =.mine
.mine: sched=(Del/unversioned), content=None
.theirs: action=Del, content=None
Some use cases:
- User's process is wrong: maybe something else needed to be merged first.
-> want to revert this whole merge.
- Already applied the patch or merged the change without recording the fact.
-> want to do it once -> MINE.
- The item being deleted (or renamed) in the source has been renamed in the
target branch.
-> want to delete/rename something else -> ELSEWHERE.
Options:
THEIRS: Nothing to do - same result as MINE.
MINE: (Nothing to do.)
ELSEWHERE: Leave TARGET as it is, and
- Find the new name(s).
- svn delete MYNEWNAME
or
svn rename MYNEWNAME THEIRNEWNAME
merge: Del onto Not Same Kind
-----------------------------
WC State:
.working: =.mine
.mine: sched=(not Del), content=TheOtherKind
.theirs: action=Del, content=None
Some use cases:
- User's process is wrong: maybe something else needed to be merged first.
-> want to revert this whole merge.
Options:
THEIRS:
- svn delete TARGET
MINE: (Nothing to do.)
merge: Del onto Not Same Content
--------------------------------
WC State:
.working: =.mine
.mine: sched=(not Del), content=SameKind
.theirs: action=Del, content=None
Some use cases:
- The content was intentionally divergent, and we still want to delete it.
-> THEIRS.
- The content was intentionally divergent, and the source node is being
renamed (and possibly modified at the same time).
-> Apply the incoming rename (possibly +mod) onto mine -> RENAME.
Options:
THEIRS:
- svn delete TARGET
MINE: (Nothing to do.)
RENAME1: Apply their rename [+mod] onto mine. (Mine is the master.)
- Find the incoming new name.
- Wait till the new name has been processed (added).
- svn merge TARGET.old THEIRNEWNAME TARGET [*1]
- svn revert THEIRNEWNAME
- svn rename TARGET THEIRNEWNAME
RENAME2: Reapply my mods onto their renamed item. (Theirs is the master.)
- Find the incoming new name.
- Wait till the new name has been processed (added).
- svn merge -r old:mine TARGET THEIRNEWNAME [*1]
- svn resolve --accept=theirs TARGET
merge: Mod onto Nothing Here
----------------------------
WC State:
.working: =.mine
.mine: sched=(Del/unversioned), content=None
.theirs: action=Mod, content=Something
Some use cases:
- The item was renamed locally
-> apply the incoming mod elsewhere -> ELSEWHERE.
Options:
THEIRS: Re-schedule the target to come back.
- copy TARGET.theirs TARGET
- svn add TARGET
MINE: (Nothing to do.)
ELSEWHERE1: Apply their mod onto mine. (Mine is the master.)
- Find the new name.
- Wait till the new name has been processed (added).
- svn merge -r OLD:THEIRS TARGET NEWNAME [*1]
ELSEWHERE2: Apply my rename[+mod] onto Theirs. (Theirs is the master.)
- svn merge -r BASE:WC NEWNAME TARGET.theirs [*1]
- mv TARGET.theirs NEWNAME
merge: Mod onto Not Same Kind
-----------------------------
WC State:
.working: =.mine
.mine: sched=(not Del), content=TheOtherKind
.theirs: action=Mod, content=Something
Options:
THEIRS: Not supported. Throw an error. (Want to schedule the target to
replace with theirs, but WC doesn't support this.)
MINE: (Nothing to do.)
Note [*1]: These commands are not yet supported.
Arbitrary Merge Facility Required
=================================
To enable the user to resolve a "Rename onto Mod" or "Mod onto Rename"
conflict efficiently and flexible, we need the ability to merge the difference
between two arbitrary WC items into another WC item. The two source items:
- may have different names;
- may be related by copyfrom info in one that in some way refers to the
other;
- may be pre-resolution conflict results like TARGET.mine or TARGET@mine.
Two ways this could be achieved:
1. Make use of history-sensitive merging by referring to the two items through
special revision kinds "old" "theirs" "mine":
svn merge -r old:theirs TARGET NEWNAME
2. Use non-history-sensitive merging on arbitrary files
"<TARGET>.old" "<TARGET>.theirs" "<TARGET>.mine":
svn merge TARGET.old TARGET.theirs NEWNAME
Q. How can we most easily implement an extension of "svn merge" that achieves
a copyfrom-history-sensitive diff (between WC items) rather than an unaware
diff?
III. MARKING AS RESOLVED
========================
Primary APIs:
libsvn_wc/adm_ops.c:resolve_conflict_on_entry()
Pre-tree-conflicts, the "resolve" functions in client through to WC layers all
end up calling resolve_conflict_on_entry() on each item. It marks all text
conflicts and property conflicts on the item as resolved. It also can select
and copy into place one of the available file-text choices, but doesn't appear
to have any such support for property conflicts.
On the tree conflicts branch, (till branch@{2008-05-29} at least) this
function assumes it will be passed the path to the parent dir of some conflict
victims, and it simply clears tree conflict data about all victims from the
entries file.
Plan
----
Separate the different functions that resolve_conflict_on_entry() performs,
making it more modular and "orthogonal".
Make the tree conflict functions operate on one victim rather than on a whole
parent directory having conflicts on any number of victims.
Make these new functions public so that the caller can compose the various
actions (copying, marking as resolved, notifying, and recursing) in whatever
order it wants.
Create the following new functions:
* Copy one of the simple outcomes (old, mine, theirs) onto the target.
select_conflict_outcome(path, svn_wc_conflict_choice_t, ...);
select_tree_conflict_outcome(victim_path, svn_wc_conflict_choice_t, ...);
- Copies the user's choice onto the "working" version of the item.
- For tree conflicts, also includes changing the scheduling of the item.
- This operation, and certainly the choice part of it, is logically above
the WC layer, except for knowledge of where the files to choose from are
stored.
* Mark conflicts as resolved on a (victim) path.
svn_wc_mark_conflict_resolved(path, ...);
- Mark text and property conflicts on one item as resolved.
svn_wc_mark_tree_conflict_resolved(victim_path, ...);
- Mark the tree conflict on one victim as resolved.
* Support for resolver callback? - where/how?