On Tue, 2008-03-25 at 15:50 +0530, Bhuvaneswaran Arumugam wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-03-25 at 15:55 +0700, Erik Grinaker wrote:
> > On Tue, 2008-03-25 at 13:17 +0530, Bhuvaneswaran Arumugam wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2008-03-25 at 13:43 +0700, Erik Grinaker wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 2008-03-24 at 14:37 +0100, Karl Heinz Marbaise wrote:
> > > > > Hi there,
> > > > >
> > > > > i have a questions about the behaviour of svn mergeinfo...
> > > > >
> > > > > I have created branch, merged from that branch and so on....
> > > > >
> > > > > svn mergeinfo
> > > > > Path: .
> > > > > Source path: /project1/trunk
> > > > > Merged ranges: r1:21
> > > > > Eligible ranges: r31:34
> > > > > Source path: /project1/branches/B_ENH_F1
> > > > > Merged ranges: r2:33
> > > > > Eligible ranges:
> > > > > Source path: /project1/branches/B_DIFF
> > > > > Merged ranges: r21:23
> > > > > Eligible ranges: r23:33
> > > > >
> > > > > Ok so far so god...
> > > > >
> > > > > But than i deleted the branch B_ENH_F1, cause i completed the work on
> > > > > that branch...
> > > > >
> > > > > svn rm ../project1/branches/B_ENH_F1 -m"- Done."
> > > > >
> > > > > and now
> > > > > svn mergeinfo
> > > > > Path: .
> > > > > Source path: /project1/trunk
> > > > > Merged ranges: r1:21
> > > > > Eligible ranges: r31:34
> > > > > Source path: /project1/branches/B_ENH_F1
> > > > > Merged ranges: r2:33
> > > > > Eligible ranges: (source no longer available in HEAD)
> > > > > Source path: /project1/branches/B_DIFF
> > > > > Merged ranges: r21:23
> > > > > Eligible ranges: r23:33
> > > > >
> > > > > So is it no more best practice to remove the integrated branches or no
> > > > > more used branches....cause this will produces many messages if i use
> > > > > the merging intensive with many branches...
> > > >
> > > > Yeah, this annoyed me a bit as well. Wouldn't it be better to only
> > > > display branches which exist in HEAD by default, and add an option to
> > > > display all branches?
> > >
> > > If i'm right, we are supposed to handle this. In case the entry is not
> > > found, we should display "(source no longer available in HEAD)". I'm not
> > > sure, if the check is supposed to handle this use case anyway.
> >
> > Yeah, they are displayed with "(source no longer available in HEAD)",
> > but it isn't very useful to have tens or hundreds of such entries for
> > feature branches which have been removed ages ago. I'd much rather only
> > have the entries for currently active branches by default.
>
> May I suggest to add "-q" switch for mergeinfo command to address this
> case? If this switch is passed, we can avoid printing the merged and
> eligible revisions for a deleted target.
FWIW, adding --verbose/-v or --quiet/-q switch for mergeinfo command is
discussed in this thread:
http://subversion.tigris.org/servlets/ReadMsg?list=dev&msgNo=136434
However, the purpose for adding this switch is completely different from
using it for deleted targets. I'll comment in that thread to verify if
we should not display merged/eligible revisions of deleted targets when
--quiet/-q switch is passed.
--
Regards,
Bhuvaneswaran
Received on 2008-03-26 15:58:09 CET