Re: Reconstructing thoughts about implicit mergeinfo

Mark Phippard wrote:
> It seems like you have been on the mark with your analysis. Is there
> some other shoe to drop if we agree that this is the way to go? I
> guess I do not understand some of what you are asking, because you
> seem to be arguing about the current design and I thought that was the
> whole point of why you were looking at this in the first place ... to
> improve/change it.

This whole thread exists because I see some problems with the current
design, and I need to figure out which of those problems are really
problems, and which of them only look like problems because I haven't been
thinking about merge tracking for 9 months like some folks have.

-- 
C. Michael Pilato <cmpilato@collab.net>
CollabNet   <>   www.collab.net   <>   Distributed Development On Demand