Re: merge should copy-with-history

Karl Fogel wrote:

>Branko Čibej <brane@xbc.nu> writes:
>
>
>>I don't agree. Merge was broken by design, and Philip's patch unbreaks
>>it somewhat. See my other post.
>>
>>
>>
>>>Most bugs are in Subversion now were there in our previous tarball,
>>>there are just fewer of them now. But we don't have to fix
>>>*everything* before releasing a tarball -- it just has to be an
>>>improvement over the last one :-).
>>>
>>>
>>Not everything. Just this. :-)
>>
>>
>
>Yes, but *why*? :-)
>
>Why this tarball, as opposed to the next one?
>

We're doing a lot of changes on branches, and merging stuff back and
forth. The sooner we get branch history correct in "svn merge", the
better it will be for us, because it makes merging _easier_.

I had a pretty bad experience when I was merging the combiner branch.

[snip]

>The point of the interim tarballs is to be *frequent* -- not to
>maximize the amount of improvement from tarball to tarball.
>
>

Exactly! We've essentially broken the fix for issue 838 into two parts.
Now that Philip's patch is in, and the semantics of merging added files
is correct, we can move issue 838 to a branch and do the more complex
stuff there.

-- 
Brane Čibej   <brane_at_xbc.nu>   http://www.xbc.nu/brane/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org