Erk -- I see a lot of complexities here, as you can tell, but I'm
gonna have to drop out of the conversation, Archie, sorry. Just time
pressures, nothing else.
-K
Archie Cobbs <archie@dellroad.org> writes:
> I'm not sure if this answers your question (I'm not sure I fully
> understand it) but here's a try...
>
> I think some would say that there can be an "appropriate" revision in
> the target repo to be the basis of the copy that's not the head revision.
>
> For example, suppose revision 10 in source repo created 'foo', then
> revision 20 in source repo modified 'foo', then revision 30 in
> source repo copied 'foo' rev 10 to create 'bar'.
>
> Now suppose source revision 10 was merged into target repo in
> revision 100, and revision 20 was merged into target repo in revision
> 200.
>
> Now, suppose you want to merge in source repo revision 30 into the
> target repo. Ideally, in the target repo, the creation of 'bar'
> would be based on revision 100 of 'foo', not revision '200', as
> this would be the most accurate mirroring of the source repo events
> in the target repo.
>
> To make the example more crisp, suppose that in the source repo
> 'foo' went from a MSWord document to a Latex document in revision
> 20. Then if you base 'bar' in the target repo off revision 200, then
> the history of 'bar' in the target repo will show that it started
> life as a Word document, was a Latex document for a while, then
> went back to being a Word document, which is not really true.
>
> I'm saying: "So what, let's just get svn merge working from multiple
> repositories even with this flaw".
>
> -Archie
>
> __________________________________________________________________________
> Archie Cobbs * CTO, Awarix * http://www.awarix.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Mon Oct 18 22:31:03 2004