[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: [BUG] Borked 1.5.x CHANGES merging

From: Mark Phippard <markphip_at_gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2008 15:56:07 -0400

On Sat, Apr 12, 2008 at 3:28 PM, Eric Gillespie <epg_at_pretzelnet.org> wrote:
> "Hyrum K. Wright" <hyrum_wright_at_mail.utexas.edu> writes:
>
> > I didn't merge the whole branch, because I only wanted the modifications
> > to CHANGES, not to the whole branch. Whether or not that was the right
> > decision can be debated, but, hey, it's version control: we can
> > always grab the other parts of r30112 later if we need them.
>
> Merging just one file from trunk is a perfectly valid use case;
> it's the natural way to maintain such a file. I don't think you
> did anything wrong.

He didn't do anything wrong. However, if you do a single file merge
than we have to record mergeinfo for that so that Subversion correctly
knows that you did not merge the other files from that revision. If
you know that you will never want to merge the other files from that
same revision and you are annoyed by the extra mergeinfo that was
created, then you have to manually tell Subversion that you merged the
entire revision. In theory, I would expect a --record-only merge of
the revision to the proper parent folder to elide away the
file-specific mergeinfo. I am not sure if it actually does that or
not, in which case you might need to propdel the property from the
files in addition to the --record-only.

-- 
Thanks
Mark Phippard
http://markphip.blogspot.com/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help_at_subversion.tigris.org
Received on 2008-04-12 21:56:21 CEST

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.