Karl Fogel <kfogel@red-bean.com> writes:
> I think issue #2897 is really two separate issues rolled into one.
> Disentangled, they are:
>
> 1) When you merge a BRANCH to TRUNK, don't merge back revisions
> which had previously been ported from TRUNK to BRANCH.
>
> 2) Don't lose conflict resolution work (where "lose" can mean
> "mistakenly lump it in with purely merged changes").
>
> My understanding -- based on nothing but instinct, and perhaps totally
> wrong -- was that the issue #2987 branch is to solve (1), because
> that's a prerequisite to solving (2). I'm reviewing the change that
> solves (1) partly in order to understand what we have to do for (2),
> though I hadn't thought we'd do (2) for 1.5. We could, though.
By the way, the more I ponder this, the more I think it makes sense to
defer (2) until 1.6. But *only* assuming that the work we do for (1)
is a subset of what we need to do for (2).
So the real question is: do you see anything happening for (1) that
works against (2), or that would need to be reverted when we do (2)?
-Karl
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Wed Nov 28 23:24:56 2007