Daniel L. Rall wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Nov 2007, cmpilato@tigris.org wrote:
>
>> Author: cmpilato
>> Date: Mon Nov 19 20:28:57 2007
>> New Revision: 27939
>>
>> Log:
>> Allow disabling of mergeinfo considerations with the --ignore-ancestry
>> option to 'svn merge'. This allows folks to effectively force merges
>> that mergeinfo would otherwise prevent without sacrificing the
>> recording -- and therefore, future consideration -- of the merge.
>>
>> * subversion/libsvn_client/merge.c
>> (notification_receiver): Add some comments.
>> (filter_reflected_revisions, filter_merged_revisions,
>> populate_remaining_ranges): Add note about only calling this
>> function when honoring mergeinfo.
>> (calculate_remaining_ranges): Lose 'same_repos' argument, and add a
>> note about only calling this function when honoring mergeinfo.
>> (populate_remaining_ranges): Add 'honor_mergeinfo' parameter, and if
>> it isn't set, populate the remaining ranges with the whole
>> requested range. Update call to calculate_remaining_ranges().
>> (drive_merge_report_editor, do_directory_merge, do_file_merge): Grow
>> awareness of merge-tracking-disabled invocations.
> ...
>> @@ -3494,6 +3530,12 @@
>> apr_pool_t *subpool;
>> svn_boolean_t is_rollback = (revision1 > revision2);
>> const char *primary_url = is_rollback ? url1 : url2;
>> + svn_boolean_t honor_mergeinfo = (merge_b->sources_related
>> + && merge_b->same_repos
>> + && (! merge_b->ignore_ancestry));
>> + svn_boolean_t record_mergeinfo = (merge_b->sources_related
>> + && merge_b->same_repos
>> + && (! merge_b->dry_run));
>
> Mike, shouldn't sources_related (currently) imply same_repos?
I would have thought so, but apparently not. We have a regression test
aimed specifically at supporting merges from one repository into a working
copy of another repository altogether.
--
C. Michael Pilato <cmpilato@collab.net>
CollabNet <> www.collab.net <> Distributed Development On Demand
Received on Wed Nov 21 03:24:48 2007