On Thursday 04 August 2005 17:56, Daniel L. Rall wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-08-04 at 17:39 +0200, Marc Haisenko wrote:
> > Just some user feedback...
> >
> > How often have you wished you could do something like that ? O_o I don't
> > see any real-world value here, at least I am very careful when merging
> > stuff and rather do it step by step and would never ever do something
> > like this... but of course I can see the geek value here ;-)
>
> I need to do this quite often when working with multiple branches (a
> state which I continually find myself in). In fact, just yesterday I
> left a change sitting in the 1.2.x branch's STATUS file rather than
> merging it because it consisted of so many revisions:
>
> * r14008, r14458, r14587, r14632, r15329, r15340
> Fixes to svnmerge.
> Justification:
> It would be good to have contrib code be the latest and fixed
> version. We don't guarantee that this code works, but it would
> be good to have known fixes released. This fixes four issues.
> Blair has used the code in trunk in a production environment and
> it works great.
>
> Being able to practically cut and pate that first line to my
> command-line client would've been a significant speed-up, and an overall
> usability plus.
Interesting... but would you rather do the merges one after another or all at
once ? And if one merge produces a conflict, would you like all others to be
reverted, or left in places ? What about the merges after the one that
conflicted ? What to do if two merges contradict each other ?
I don't like to say this is a bad feature, it's certainly useful, but I think
this feature would be quite hard to design correctly and my impression is
that only few people would gain from it...
--
Marc Haisenko
Systemspezialist
Webport IT-Services GmbH
mailto: haisenko@webport.de
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Thu Aug 4 18:09:14 2005