--- Ben Collins-Sussman <sussman@collab.net> wrote:
> solo turn <soloturn99@yahoo.com> writes:
>
> > personally i'm lacking:
> > - clear, concise (short!) documentation
> > (in book and "svn help merge")
>
> Seriously, is 'svn help merge' not short and clear? The very first
> thing it says is:
>
>
> merge: apply the differences between two sources to a working copy
> path.
> usage: 1. merge sourceURL1[@N] sourceURL2[@M] [WCPATH]
> 2. merge -r N:M SOURCE [WCPATH]
exactly this is unclear. what tells you that you cannot get the
difference between trunk and issue-branch, and apply it to your
working copy (containing trunk)? just experience, i guess ...
philipp was able to describe it so even i could understand it, and i
would not mind to see something like this in the book :)
but it still remains quite tricky to figure out the correct revision
numbers ... which makes me think merge is the only command left in
svn, which does what it should, has a very general approach, but the
usability somehow sucks. and it therefor opens the doors for
destruction of the working copy and repository by unskillful use.
why the "ideal" syntax cannot be something like:
merge some url to my working copy. svn should know that it was
branched, and svn should know the revision number where it was
branched, and svn should know that i want to get all the changes from
that branch. and maybe svn should also store that i merged the
changes up to some revision number.
could this be supported better to give a normal user the possibility
to use this great feature?
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Wed Apr 30 00:10:31 2003