[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: [BIKESHED] Merge notification verb choices

From: Daniel Rall <dlr_at_collab.net>
Date: 2007-09-18 01:49:24 CEST

On Mon, 17 Sep 2007, Paul Burba wrote:

> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Daniel Rall [mailto:dlr@collab.net]
> > Sent: Monday, September 17, 2007 3:57 PM
> > To: Blair Zajac
> > Cc: Michael Pilato; Subversion Developers
> > Subject: Re: [BIKESHED] Merge notification verb choices
> >
> > On Fri, 14 Sep 2007, Blair Zajac wrote:
...
> > > >I suggest that we conservatively call a reverse-merge what it is:
> > > >
> > > > Reverse-merging r45
> > >
> > > +1 on reverse-merging.
> > >
> > > Undo'ing could imply to somebody that the revision is
> > removed from the
> > > repository, which of course, it isn't. So reverse-merge is
> > the best choice.
> >
> > I changed it as suggested in r26639.
> >
> > We still need to either suppress this notification, or change
> > its text, for merges whose left and right sides aren't at the
> > same URL (e.g. for 'svn merge url1@revX url2@revY .').
>
> We discussed this a bit on IRC and FWIW I'd like to see a generic
> notification in the two-URL case to keep it somewhat consistent with the
> single-URL case. Maybe something like:
>
> " --- Merging difference between unrelated URLs"

Since we don't bother to determine whether the URLs are actually
(historically) unrelated, I went with a somewhat similar message in
r26648. If someone has a better suggestion, I'm all ears.

  • application/pgp-signature attachment: stored
Received on Tue Sep 18 01:49:39 2007

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.