Mark Phippard wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 5:30 AM, Julian Foad <julianfoad_at_btopenworld.com> wrote:
> > It is worth considering printing an abbreviated notification.
> Given that Paul's proposal calls for adding a new section to the
> notification process to show the paths that mergeinfo is applied to,
> don't you think he accomplishes this goal? Even if the notifications
> are perceived as overwhelming, they are still segregated to their own
> area where you can easily ignore them.
> In addition, the trunk code no longer updates subtrees with mergeinfo
> unless they are modified by the merge. So there really should not be
> too much extra noise.
Ah, thanks, I hadn't remembered that change, and that makes a huge
difference. Great. It's fine to issue lots of subtree mergeinfo
notifications if lots of files were touched by the merge.
+1 to adding the notifications as proposed.
Received on 2009-12-10 14:53:39 CET