Re: reverse-merge broken?

> Since a reverse merge is always going to be an explicit user
> operation, maybe we ought to just not try to avoid repeat reverse
> merges? The user has already signified they want to reverse the
> merge, so why not just try to do it? What is the scenario where this
> is going to lead to incorrect behavior?
>
>

merge_tests-67 exhibits one behaviour which needs 'avoid repeat reverse
merge'.

The usecase is
1)Merge -rX:Y(X<Y) to 'target' from 'src'
2)Revert Z(X<Z<Y) on some subtree of target
3)Revert rY:X to 'target' would cause a conflict.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Fri Oct 19 09:05:10 2007