Re: valgrind UMRs in "svn merge --record-only"

Paul Burba <ptburba_at_gmail.com> writes:

>> How is the user supposed to have any
>> confidence that they have run the command correctly,
>
> How would a notification really help them know they ran the command
> *correctly*? Like any merge, choose the wrong source, the wrong
> target, the wrong revision, you get the wrong result. I don't see how
> improved notifications avoid the need to check svn status, diff,
> and/or propget svn:mergeinfo after the merge, to see if the result is
> what was expected. Admittedly --record-only merges are particularly
> problematic because there are no text or tree conflicts to alert us
> that we might have screwed up, but I still don't see how notifications
> help users much in confirming correctness.

I could ask why normal merge produces notification, after all the user
has to check status and diff to ensure that the merge got applied
correctly. Does that mean the normal merge notification is of no use?

The obvious case where record-only notifications help is when the
merge doesn't change anything, because I got the wrong source URL or
revision. If I'm expecting to see a change and I get no notification
then I know I made a mistake.

> Possibly I am thinking of too simplistic a notification. I assume the
> notification would be something like this in the simple case (i.e. no
> pre-existing subtree mergeinfo, no incoming mergeinfo diffs):
>
> svn merge ^^/trunk branches\b1.0 -c357 --record-only
> --- Recording mergeinfo for r357 into 'branches\b1.0':
> U branches\b1.0

I was thinking just the U line.

-- 
Philip
------------------------------------------------------
http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=462&dsMessageId=2426379
Please start new threads on the <dev_at_subversion.apache.org> mailing list.
To subscribe to the new list, send an empty e-mail to <dev-subscribe_at_subversion.apache.org>.