On Wed, 2007-04-04 at 08:57 -0400, Mark Phippard wrote:
> On 4/4/07, Paul Burba <email@example.com> 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
> > Lundblad; firstname.lastname@example.org
> > 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* <email@example.com
> > <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org>>
> > > 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
> > >
> > > With the possible exception that we are trying to hide
> > updates to
> > > mergeinfo properties, I'd have excpected to see a property
> > > notification.
> > For property merge we still get 'G' even if the WC already
> > 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
> (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 updated?
> Just guessing.
> 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
Yes, it comes in HTML. If you use Gmail you, I think you are using "Rich
Formatting" mode while composing the email. If you switch back to "Plain
Text" mode, I think it should be fine.
Received on Wed Apr 4 15:04:48 2007