Re: Medium-term roadmap: 1.3, 1.4, 1.5.

Greg Hudson <ghudson@MIT.EDU> writes:

> On Fri, 2005-04-22 at 20:01, Philip Martin wrote:
>> I don't really see why atomic renames are a prerequisite for merge
>> tracking.
>
> We may be using the term "merge tracking" overbroadly. What we really
> want is "better merging", and proper rename tracking is a prerequisite
> for good merging in the presence of tree reorganizations.

I guess it depends what one means by "good". Update could make better
use of copyfrom information to move local mods within a working copy,
I suspect merge could do the same. If merge and update were to do
that then we might be able to handle tree reorganizations in a manner
that is "good enough" in most cases.

As far as I can see the introduction of atomic rename doesn't make
merge tracking any easier, unless merge tracking drops support for
copy with history.

-- 
Philip Martin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org