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?
-Karl
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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