Re: reverse-merge broken?
On Thu, 18 Oct 2007, Mark Phippard wrote:
> On 10/18/07, Daniel L. Rall <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > On Thu, 18 Oct 2007, Mark Phippard wrote:
> > > 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?
See other response -- this seems to be necessary for backwards compat.
Received on Fri Oct 19 03:15:03 2007
- application/pgp-signature attachment: stored
This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev