Greg Hudson wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-10-27 at 20:10 +0100, Julian Foad wrote:
>
>>Some people (not me) are proposing that "merge" should accept and apply a list
>>of separate changes. If we end up making "merge" do this, then "diff" should
>>do so too. I feel a bit uncomfortable about the idea, not being sure that it
>>is well defined in all situations, but it's a possible future extension that
>>can be discussed in detail when people want to discuss it.
>
> It is well-defined when there are no conflicts.
>
> The meaning of "svn diff -c A,B,C,D foo" is a diff between foo as of rev
> A-1 and that same text with revs A, B, C, and D applied to it.
Er... Did you mean to sound so authoritative?
Obviously, intuitively, one would expect it to mean _something like_ that, but
when we try for a formal definition and you say "this is the meaning" of this
feature that doesn't exist, do you mean "this is how I would define it off the
top of my head" or "I've studied and consulted and this is the most useful
definition" or "this is SVK's definition" or something else? Yours is not the
only possible meaning. I can think of one that I believe would be more useful
in some cases. Do you want to discuss this now?
> This would be useful in the Subversion project when reviewing changes
> for committing to a release branch.
Yes, I see the usefulness and don't object to it being developed if people want it.
- Julian
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Fri Oct 28 01:27:42 2005