On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 1:39 PM, Julian Foad <julianfoad_at_btopenworld.com> wrote:
> Paul Burba wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 5:15 PM, <julianfoad_at_tigris.org> wrote:
>>> http://subversion.tigris.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2897
>>>
>>> User julianfoad changed the following:
>>>
>>> What |Old value |New value
>>> =============================================================
>>> Status|NEW |RESOLVED
>>> Resolution| |FIXED
>>>
>>> ------- Additional comments from julianfoad_at_tigris.org Thu Apr 11 14:15:36
>>> Closing as fixed.
>>>
>>> Current trunk (which will become Suversion 1.8) supports merging to-and-fro
>>> between two branches, automatically performing the right sort of merge
>>> (reintegrate or not, depending on which direction the previous full merge was)
>>> to take all the not-yet-merged changes from the source branch to the target
>>> branch. The release-notes description is at
>>> <http://subversion.apache.org/docs/release-notes/1.8.html#auto-merge>.
>>>
>>> It is not perfect. For one thing, it does not deal correctly with
>>> revisions that have been cherry-pick merged between the branches
>>> in all cases (it does in some cases). However, it solves the basic
>>> requirement.
>>
>> Hi Julian,
>>
>> Can we really call this fixed? As you point out it does not deal with
>> cherry pick (and subtree) merges in all cases. Is there another issue
>> for the aspects that still don't work?
>
> Well, I admit it's a bit bold to call it fixed, but I looked at what the issue was asking for, and it's almost entirely about basic repeated syncs and full merging to-and-fro between a pair of branches. Those merges were the reason for opening the issue, so I think it's fair to close it on those terms.
>
> Of course we want to support cherry picks as well. I think the best thing would be to open a new issue. I don't think there is on, so I'll do that.
Issue #2897 has a lot of discussion not terribly relevant to the
problem, so a new issue sounds find to me.
> But if you feel this "Reflective merges are faulty" issue should stay open, we can re-open it.
>
>
>> On a practical note, we have a test associated with this issue that is
>> set to XFail:
>>
>> merge_tests.py 49 'avoid repeated merges for cyclic merging'
>
> OK, I'll take a look at that. Thanks.
The test is of the criss-cross cherrypick variety. So we can probably
just change the associated issue for this test from #2897 to the new
issue.
--
Paul T. Burba
CollabNet, Inc. -- www.collab.net -- Enterprise Cloud Development
Skype: ptburba
Received on 2013-04-12 19:51:19 CEST