cmpilato@collab.net writes:
> John Goerzen <jgoerzen@complete.org> writes:
>
> > My question is: why? Subversion has enough information to duplicate
> > the upstream changes locally, but doesn't. It appears to be behaving
> > as if --ignore-ancestry was given to merge, but it wasn't.
> >
> > Can anybody shed some light on this?
>
> Um ... Ben and I, kinda, made --ignore-ancestry the default. It's now
> --notice-ancestry. But the other day, Ben started having second
> thoughts, and now I am, too. Should this be reverted?
Here's my thoughts, which I think cmpilato now agrees with:
* when you run 'svn diff', you don't care *how* the change came
into being, you just want to see the net result to your working
copy . Seeing a "delete foo; add foo" is completely annoying
and useless -- especially in unified diff output.
* when you 'svn merge' the exact same change to your working copy,
you *want* to see the intent of the change. It's important to
see a "D foo, A foo" displayed -- don't cover up this fact by
displaying "U foo". It's a piece of useful information.
So my proposal is to do the least surprsing thing in each case: 'svn
diff' should ignore ancestry by default, and 'svn merge' should honor
ancestry by default. (Of course we'd have switches to allow opposite
behaviors.)
Any objections to this?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Fri Aug 22 17:53:50 2003