RE: reverse-merge broken?

Jack,

>There is only one attempted reverse-merge in my example, and indeed
>that one doesn't do anything so far as I can see, so in some sense
>there are zero. I don't understand, then, why you end up asking
>questions about *repeat* reverse merges.

As I mentioned in one of my email,
* We don't record reverse merges *explicitly*, i.e no recording of mergeinfo /src:-17

Please mean 'Avoid repeat reverse merge' === 'Allow reverse merges only if there exists a corresponding forward merge' to be more clear in our earlier discussions

I agree it is annoying, We fixed this, by handing 'self reversals'(as your example) as a special case.

P.S self reversals = reverse merge from same source as that of the target. After all rX committed on path /target implicitly equivalent 'merge of rX changeset from /target to /target'

>Perhaps your thought is, more or less, "we have to do something or
>other about repeat reverse merges, so what policy is acceptable on
>that?"

I don't think it is the policy change rather a way it should have been originally done as a part of 'avoid repeat reverse merge'.

With regards
Kamesh Jayachandran
Received on Sat Oct 20 20:41:31 2007