On Mon, 03 Dec 2007, Paul Burba wrote:
> > From: Daniel Rall [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> > On Fri, 30 Nov 2007, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
> > > David Glasser wrote:
> > > > How bad of an idea is making "svn merge" with reverse
> > > > ranges default
> > > > to the target and with forward ranges default to the other branch?
> > > >
> > > > In my mind that would match common uses well, though
> > > > maybe it is too
> > > > clever, and if the command can take multiple ranges (can it?)
> > > > clearly doesn't work.
> > >
> > > The command can take multiple ranges, and they can be of
> > > mixed "direction".
> > Is support for "mixed direction" ranges a good idea? What's
> > the use case?
> I had no particular use case in mind, it was simply a case of supporting
> it didn't seem to have any negative repercussions (at the time!). I can
> make the change to disallow it if that is preferred - I certainly have
> no objections to limiting direction.
Doing so would present a simpler, if less flexible, UI.
It's possible that someone might want to both forward-merge and
reverse-merge a set of changes in a single 'merge' operation. Seems like
something of an edge case, though.
Received on Mon Dec 3 21:22:26 2007
- application/pgp-signature attachment: stored