On 4/4/07, Paul Burba <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Kamesh Jayachandran
> > Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2007 8:29 AM
> > To: Mark Phippard
> > Cc: Paul Burba; Subversion Development; Daniel Rall; Peter N.
> > Lundblad; email@example.com
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH]: Stop mer'G'e notification for files
> > with local mods that are unchanged by merge
> > Mark Phippard wrote:
> > > On 4/4/07, *Paul Burba* <firstname.lastname@example.org
> > <mailto:email@example.com>>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > When merging into a file with preexisting local
> > modifications, our
> > > code
> > > in merge.c:merge_file_changed() always reports a
> > mer'G'e has occurred,
> > > even if the merge made no change to the file (i.e.
> > svn_wc_merge2()
> > > returns a merge outcome of svn_wc_merge_unchanged).
> > >
> > > This results in a lot of incorrect notifications with
> > merge-tracking -
> > > see http://svn.haxx.se/dev/archive-2007-03/1157.shtml
> > > <http://svn.haxx.se/dev/archive-2007-03/1157.shtml>
> > But I'd argue
> > > it's incorrect regardless of merge-tracking and would like to
> > > apply the
> > > attached patch. I see no problems with this, but
> > Philip Martin's
> > > question in merge_file_changed()...
> > >
> > >
> > > In your example (in the mailing list archive link), the file is not
> > > updated by the merge, but the file's properties are.
> > Shouldn't there
> > > be a notification due to the properties being updated? Or are we
> > > trying to suppress those when it is the mergeinfo property?
> > >
> > > With the possible exception that we are trying to hide the
> > updates to
> > > mergeinfo properties, I'd have excpected to see a property update
> > > notification.
> > For property merge we still get 'G' even if the WC already as
> > the same local change.
> I might be misunderstanding Mark, but I think he is referring only to
> If so this is somewhat of a separate issue. Currently we do treat the
> svn:mergeinfo prop as special and don't notify regarding changes to it
> (hmmm, not sure if this always true but I think it is ATM). I'm not
> sure if this was by design, I see nothing in the specs that indicates it
> was, perhaps Dan or Kamesh can speak to this? Regardless I think the
> current behavior is correct, svn:mergeinfo changes show up in status
> (they are after all properties), but I wouldn't want to see them in the
> output of svn merge since I see them more as meta-(meta?)-data on the
> merge rather than part of it.
OK, so let's say another property was set and merge updated the property
value, what would it report as?
What I was kind of getting at is maybe 'G' is expected here because of the
property update and the real fix is to hide it when only mergeinfo is
Paul told me he has trouble replying to my emails because they come to him
in HTML. I do not see any GMail settings to control this. Does anyone else
have problems with my emails? I assumed GMail would handle this "right",
but I suppose in this case what is right is a bikeshed.
Received on Wed Apr 4 14:57:34 2007