Re: [Svnmerge] [PATCH] Add ability to mark change sets as merged

David James <djames@collab.net> wrote:

>> """
>> [...]
>> The immediate effect is the same (the revision is not available for
>> merge anymore), but the behaviour will be more correct with respect
>> to merge across multiple branches.
>> """
>
> Really? Why would --record-only allow svnmerge.py to behave more
> correctly?

Lie to svnmerge.py and it will take its revenge :)

You manual-merge r100 from A to B, and block it in B (instead of
using --record-only). Then you merge all the changes from B to C: this
effectively brings in the manual merge of r100, but C doesn't know about it.
You then merge everything from A to C, and you get conflicts because r100 is
merged again.

I'm not sure svnmerge.py is *currently* smart enough that, if you
use --record-only, it understands that it doesn't need to merge r100 from A to
C. Surely, it is a feature that it is feasable. Even if it doesn't right now,
my point that you shouldn't lie to svnmerge still stands.

Anyway, I'm satisfied with what was committed right now as part of the help of
'block'. It is clear enough.

Giovanni Bajo

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Wed Mar 29 02:35:48 2006