[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: svn commit: r28303 - in branches/mo-betta-two-url-merges/subversion: libsvn_client tests/cmdline

From: David Glasser <glasser_at_davidglasser.net>
Date: 2007-12-07 07:14:16 CET

On Dec 6, 2007 9:02 PM, C. Michael Pilato <cmpilato@collab.net> wrote:
> David Glasser wrote:
> > On Dec 6, 2007 10:26 AM, <cmpilato@tigris.org> wrote:
> >> Author: cmpilato
> >> Date: Thu Dec 6 10:26:12 2007
> >> New Revision: 28303
> >>
> >> Log:
> >> On the 'mo-betta-two-url-merges' branch, take a different approach to
> >> the two-url merge problem. So, given a situation like this:
> >>
> >> +-----------> (A)
> >> /
> >> -----+-------------> (B)
> >> (C)
> >>
> >> Say we wish to merge the diff between A and B to some target.
> >>
> >> Rather than do two mergeinfo-recording merges (A:C, C:B) like code in
> >> the branch on which is branch is based does, we instead do one
> >> mergeinfo-not-recording merge A:B, and then two record-only merges
> >> (A:C, C:B).
> >
> > Hey, Mike! Is it just me, or is our old svn_client_merge_peg-only
> > mergeinfo calculation now just a special case of your mo-betta-merge,
> > where C is equal to A or B?
>
> Yes. svn_client_merge_peg3 covers the case where A == C or B == C. We
> could have svn_client_merge3() just call svn_client_merge_peg3() in those
> cases, but I'm not sure it's worth it. We'd be reopening ra-sessions and
> calculating repos roots and stuff all over again unnecessarily, and the code
> overlap is super-minimal already.
>
> Oh, I was thinking about this backwardsly. Are you asking if
> svn_client_merge_peg3() should just become a wrapper around
> svn_client_merge3()? It certainly could, but I'd had to do is-ancestral
> checks all over again when we already know the sources are ancestrally
> related (by virtue of coming in through the ..._peg3() interface).
>
> Then again, maybe you were suggesting something else. Or maybe you were
> suggesting nothing at all. Or maybe I'm just enjoying the typing practice
> this mail affords me. Or...

I might be suggesting that this logic belongs in do_merge somehow
instead of in the wrappers...

Maybe do_merge should take an argument that is your "C" here?

--dave

-- 
David Glasser | glasser_at_davidglasser.net | http://www.davidglasser.net/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Fri Dec 7 07:14:30 2007

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.