On Oct 22, 2007, at 11:35 PM, Karl Fogel wrote:
> 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?
I acknowledge the point about the disruption of a new subcommand; I
only mentioned it as a way to highlight this idea that there really
are two different operations here, we've flipped the one command from
one meaning to the other but we still explicitly cover only one.
Whether the option to do the other thing is "--ignore-ancestry" or
merely "-G" (that is, the number of characters to type) is rather
secondary. This is not about keyboard-labor, but about
comprehensibility and surprises.
As a practical matter, the case I ran into that got me started still
worries me. I noticed it because I was only merging one revision, so
it was obvious that nothing had happened -- and indeed, this special
case has been special-cased over. But I'm not convinced it's the
only "special case," and a more complicated one might not be so
obvious. It would be much more accessible if merge only did merge
(which might even make my "reverse merge failure" legitimate), and
some other command did "never mind the history, just do what I tell
you."
But I'm just spouting off. Maybe it's a wart, but particularly at
this point, we can live with it.
-==-
Jack Repenning
Chief Technology Officer
CollabNet, Inc.
8000 Marina Boulevard, Suite 600
Brisbane, California 94005
office: +1 650.228.2562
mobile: +1 408.835.8090
raindance: +1 877.326.2337, x844.7461
aim: jackrepenning
skype: jrepenning
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Tue Oct 23 04:29:45 2007