Jack Repenning wrote:
>>From: Karl Fogel [mailto:kfogel@newton.ch.collab.net]
>>
>>
>
>
>
>> To get a feel for this, I tried reasoning about an extreme case:
>> you do a merge and absolutely no files are affected. In that
>> case, it would be equally correct to store no properties, or to
>> store a property on every file indicating that the merge was
>> done.
>>
>>
>
>Again, I point out the distinction between two meanings for "no files
>were affected":
>
>"there were no differences to merge"
>"all the differences were rejected"
>
>The first case is certainly a no-op, and (surely?) everyone would agree
>that there's no value in recording anything about it.
>
Ah, I think I see the difficulty. The merge source *would* be recorded
in the second case, because accepting or rejecting changes isn't part of
the automated merge algorithm, it's part of merge auditing/conflict
resolution, something which cannot be automated.
>The second is a conscious decision (startling, in your extreme case, but
>hey, that's what extremities are for!). You can only argue that no
>record should be made of this (startling) event if you can also argue
>that no subsequent use would be made of the record. And I think that's
>not true, here: the next merge including this range of revisions
>will/should be affected by this record.
>
>
Right. It now looks like we're talking about the exact same use case,
under a different name; a no-op merge isn't a merge that produces no
differences, it's a merge that *ignores* any differences.
--
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
Received on Sun Apr 13 02:34:15 2003