Paul Burba wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: C. Michael Pilato [mailto:cmpilato_at_collab.net]
>> Sent: Monday, January 07, 2008 10:16 PM
>> To: Paul Burba
>> Cc: Mark Phippard; David Glasser; dev_at_subversion.tigris.org
>> Subject: Re: Mixed Direction Merges and Range Compaction
>> (Was: Auto-selection of merge source URL)
>> Did we ever decide what to do about this:
> Hi Mike,
> No, looks like your previous mail was the last thought on this. So what
> to do? You posed three related questions:
> 1) Allow mixed directions?
> 2) Perform range sorting?
> 3) Perform range compaction?
> No matter what combination we choose we are sure to make someone unhappy
> but I don't have much feel for which choice will cause the least
> unhappiness. That hedging aside, I think we should:
> A) Disallow mixed directions, seriously is *anyone* clamoring for this?
> B) Sort and compact ranges. This is easy to explain and understand.
> While it robs power users of some potential tricks, they can still, as
> you pointed out previously, execute multiple merge commands instead.
I think I favor doing no pre-processing *at all* of the requested ranges.
Let users ask for what they want; let them get what they asked for. So,
allow mixed revisions, allow dupes, allow overlaps -- the whole shebang.
Remember, we do our range looping high in the call stack of a merge
operation. If our merge tracking can't deal with these conditions in a
single 'svn merge' invocation, it can't deal with them across multiple 'svn
merge' invocations (and is therefore pretty much useless).
C. Michael Pilato <cmpilato_at_collab.net>
CollabNet <> www.collab.net <> Distributed Development On Demand
Received on 2008-01-08 15:28:57 CET