On 3/22/06, Alan Barrett <apb@cequrux.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Mar 2006, David James wrote:
> > Here's two options, both of which would be consistent:
> > 1) Never merge 'blocked revisions' between branches. If you ask
> > svnmerge.py to not merge r10 from branchA to branchB, and then merge
> > changes from branchB to branchC, you've only asked svnmerge to block a
> > merge of r10 from branchA to branchB. r10 is still available to merge
> > from branchA to branchC.
> > 2) Always merge 'blocked revisions' between branches. If you ask
> > svnmerge.py to not merge r10 from branchA to branchB, and then merge
> > changes from branchB to branchC, you've therefore asked svnmerge.py to
> > not merge r10 from branchA to branchC.
>
> I favour option 1. If the user wants to merge from A to C both
> indirectly "A --> B --> C" and also directly "A --> C", then presumably
> they have their own good reasons for that. Marking a change as "not
> wanted in branch B" shouldn't be interpreted as "not wanted in branch
> C".
It's also possible that the user may have marked the change as "not
wanted in branch B", because they manually merged it from branch A to
branch B. In that case, we'd want to include the blockprop metadata
changes with any merges from branch B.
Is 'svnmerge.py block -rX' the canonical way to indicate that you've
manually merged a particular change? Or is there another way to do it?
Cheers,
David
--
David James -- http://www.cs.toronto.edu/~james
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Wed Mar 22 18:55:49 2006