Re: svn commit: r29129 - branches/1.5.x

David Glasser wrote:
> Have we been consistent about using svnmerge.py since this?

Methinks yes. (Though I haven't audited the log to find out.)

> Has anyone done the --record-only equivalent to the branch yet for the
> few changes before this?

/trunk:1-29080,29085-29089,29095-29098,29100-29105,29107,29111 are
listed as having been merged prior to the addition of svnmerge.py tracking.

From the logs, it looks like r29094, r29099, and r29114 were merged
before we initialized, and haven't been recorded yet.

-Hyrum

> On Feb 1, 2008 7:21 AM, <pburba_at_tigris.org> wrote:
>> Author: pburba
>> Date: Fri Feb 1 07:21:23 2008
>> New Revision: 29129
>>
>> Log:
>> Initialize merge tracking using svnmerge.py on the 1.5.x branch.
>>
>> Modified:
>> branches/1.5.x/ (props changed)
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: svn-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: svn-help_at_subversion.tigris.org
>>
>>
>
>
>