On 10/18/07, Daniel L. Rall <dlr@finemaltcoding.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Oct 2007, Mark Phippard wrote:
>
> > On 10/18/07, Kamesh Jayachandran <kamesh@collab.net> wrote:
> >
> > > Do you have any mergeinfo on a target from the corresponding merge
> > > source? Then only the 'avoid repeat reverse merge code kicks in' and
> > > hence no reverse merge.
> > >
> > > Probably we may need '--merge-insensitive' or '-G' to support repeat
> > > reverse merge.
> >
> > Since a reverse merge is always going to be an explicit user
> > operation, maybe we ought to just not try to avoid repeat reverse
> > merges? The user has already signified they want to reverse the
> > merge, so why not just try to do it? What is the scenario where this
> > is going to lead to incorrect behavior?
>
> We absolutely have to perform the reverse merge, regardless of mergeinfo
> on the merge target.
My initial instinct was the same, but thinking some more. Suppose you
merge something. Then reverse merge part of it. Then later decide to
reverse merge all of it. Would we want it to be able to use the
mergeinfo here to understand the situation and not repeat parts of the
reverse merge?
Or would we just think it does not matter or is not worth it?
--
Thanks
Mark Phippard
http://markphip.blogspot.com/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Fri Oct 19 03:06:05 2007