RE: reverse-merge broken?
From: Kamesh Jayachandran <kamesh_at_collab.net>
Date: 2007-10-20 20:41:19 CEST
>There is only one attempted reverse-merge in my example, and indeed
As I mentioned in one of my email,
Please mean 'Avoid repeat reverse merge' === 'Allow reverse merges only if there exists a corresponding forward merge' to be more clear in our earlier discussions
I agree it is annoying, We fixed this, by handing 'self reversals'(as your example) as a special case.
P.S self reversals = reverse merge from same source as that of the target. After all rX committed on path /target implicitly equivalent 'merge of rX changeset from /target to /target'
>Perhaps your thought is, more or less, "we have to do something or
I don't think it is the policy change rather a way it should have been originally done as a part of 'avoid repeat reverse merge'.
This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.