> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bob Archer [mailto:Bob.Archer_at_infor.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2009 8:39 AM
> To: Gleason, Todd; marc gonzalez-carnicer; users_at_subversion.tigris.org
> Subject: RE: merge --exclude-revisions
> > A similar thought had crossed my mind some time back as well. I
> > that one use would be that if you were merging back and forth
> > branch and trunk (and did not want to reintegrate, delete the
> > and then re-create it), that you excluded the trunk->branch merges
> > you merged from branch->trunk.
> You can do this by doing a --record-only merge to set the merge
> on the branch so it will ignore the reinteration merge revisions
> to the trunk. This way you can use --reintegrate and let svn do all
> work on determining what revs to merge.
> Mark P has posted about this several times. I give him all the credit
> this information.
I see some posts under
eId=99732 that appear to explain this, though I don't understand them
well enough to trust that I'd do the right thing in this scenario.
(Mostly what I read in that thread talked about keeping the branch in
sync with the trunk, whereas I think more in terms of cherry-picking
changes from the trunk that are needed to make progress in the branch,
and just not wanting them merged back to the trunk...so I'm not sure
whether to record-only in the trunk or the branch, and if so, what
exactly to record.)
In any case, there are other uses for this scenario anyway. Maybe you
have other reasons not to want specific revisions (perhaps they
introduce instability and you need further changes in the branch before
merging these to the trunk). So I still think it sounds useful, though
I'm sure there are plenty of higher-priority features on the table.
To unsubscribe from this discussion, e-mail: [users-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org].
Received on 2009-04-29 17:01:13 CEST