Ping. Anyone have a take on this? If not, I'm likely to go with the
property merge notification we're currently getting on the
merge-tracking branch.
On Tue, 16 Jan 2007, Daniel Rall wrote:
> Merge test #12 was marked as XFAIL in r22119. I'd like some feedback
> on what y'all think the expected behavior should be. Stripping out
> the irrelevant stuff, here's the situation:
>
> $ svn cp TRUNK_URL BRANCH_URL # create r2
> $ # Do some other unrelated stuff to create r3
> $ svn pg svn:mergeinfo BRANCH_URL@2
> /A:1
> $ svn pg svn:mergeinfo TRUNK_URL@3
> $ svn di BRANCH_URL@2 TRUNK_URL@3
>
> Property changes on: .
> ___________________________________________________________________
> Name: svn:mergeinfo
> - /A:1
>
> So, BRANCH_URL has some merge info, and trunk doesn't.
>
> $ svn merge BRANCH_URL@2 TRUNK_URL@3 WC_PATH
> G svn-test-work/working_copies/merge_tests-12/A
>
> A merge of the difference between these two URLs produces a delta,
> which is a revert of some merge info which doesn't exist on TRUNK_URL,
> nor happens to exist in WC_PATH (which happens to correspond to
> TRUNK_URL). So, even though we have a delta, application of the delta
> is a no-op.
>
> Should we still send a mer' G'ed notification?
- application/pgp-signature attachment: stored
Received on Wed Jan 24 00:28:46 2007