On 10/19/07, Alexander Klenin <email@example.com> wrote:
> >The revision range is in svn -c style (rather than -r) and can be a
> >list of revisions and ranges. Use the Show Log for URL dialog as an
> >alternative means of populating this box.
> Or perhaps bite the bullet and insert a log list control here,
> with some kind of multi-selection?
I think using the log dialog should be enough. You can select there
the revisions you want to merge too, no need to embed the log dialog
in the wizard page.
> I am afraid displaying revision range as list of numbers would be next to
> useless for complex merges.
> Does 1.5 allow multiple sources in the single merge in addition to
> multiple ranges from the same source?
No, one source, one revision range. No multiple ranges either: we have
to call the merge API for every non-consecutive merge range.
> >> - page 1 would be used to select the merge style
> >> A. merge all changes from branch origin
> >> (this is the 'automerge', or 'svn merge -g' option)
> On 10/19/07, Simon Large <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> >If the auto merge box is checked, the other controls are greyed out,
> >but there should be a big fat warning somewhere (tooltip?) that this
> >will be *very* slow on a pre-1.5 server. It would be useful to
> >remember the state of this checkbox on a per-repository basis.
> I have not looked to SVN API upon which this command is based,
> but is it possible to get a revision ranges / sources without
> performing the merge itself?
It's possible to get the sources, yes. But as I mentioned before: if I
try that on the TSVN trunk url, it took 3 minutes to get the
information (and 1.5MB data transferred).
> If so, I think it would be the best way, as it gives user a chance
> to preview and understand what will happen.
The preview is already there: it's called "dry run". We should use
that one as a preview.
> > No need for the 'Use from URL' checkbox any more.
> > Merge tracking doesn't work for 3-way merge, so no need for any of
> > that here either.
> While I personally rarely, if ever, use it, it is still a valid action.
> > I don't like the "From:" and "To" names because they appear to be the
> > wrong way round,
> "Last revision/first revision"?
We're talking about the URLs here, not the revision. But "last
url/first url" might not be so bad?
oo // \\ "De Chelonian Mobile"
(_,\/ \_/ \ TortoiseSVN
\ \_/_\_/> The coolest Interface to (Sub)Version Control
/_/ \_\ http://tortoisesvn.net
To unsubscribe, e-mail: email@example.com
For additional commands, e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
Received on Fri Oct 19 10:08:08 2007