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

Re: reverse-merge broken?

From: Karl Fogel <kfogel_at_red-bean.com>
Date: 2007-10-22 20:05:43 CEST

Jack Repenning <jrepenning@collab.net> writes:
> Thanks for the clarification, Kamesh.
> At one time or another, I've heard people suggest that, as part of this
> merge-tracking work, we ought to have two subcommands:
>  - patch: the old "merge", without merge info
>  - merge: the new one, with merge info
> I guess that idea died.  Too bad: this is a good illustration of the
> problem it was trying to solve.  If you're thinking of "merge" as
> being "the thing with all this merge info history," then this case
> you call "self reversal" really isn't a merge at all; the "patch"
> command would be fine.

I'd not want to introduce another subcommand at this point in the game
(*maybe* for 1.6, but we need time to really think/talk about it).

However, is there any use to having a "-G" flag, meaning "do NOT
affect mergeinfo", for merge and other commands?


To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Mon Oct 22 20:05:56 2007

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

This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.