On Jan 25, 2008 3:23 PM, Karl Fogel <kfogel_at_red-bean.com> wrote:
> "Paul Burba" <ptburba_at_gmail.com> writes:
> > In r28492 I made a change that prohibited inheritance across mixed-rev
> > boundaries.
> r28942 (I knew which one you meant, no worry).
> > Karl questioned the sanity of this change here,
> > Did you have a chance to think on this some more?
> > I'm somewhat ambivalent about taking working revisions into account
> > when doing mergeinfo inheritance. It is technically correct to do so
> > AFAICT, but in practical terms it is a headache whenever we have
> > mergeinfo anywhere other than branch roots. Worse I don't think
> > preventing inheritance across a mixed-rev path solves anything but
> > some far-out edge cases.
> > Isn't the larger issue about inheritable properties in general? They
> > are all fine and good in a WC with consistent working revisions. But
> > the moment mixed-revisions enter the picture we have to choose between
> > correctness and ease of use no?
> I agree with everything you say. But I haven't had much chance to
> think about it more, and I think it's okay to leave the code as it is
> for the moment -- this is an easy thing to tweak later, and if worse
> comes to worst and we have to ship with it too strict (and then relax
> later) that's better than the reverse. (Though I'd like to reconsider
> it before we ship.)
Sounds good, thanks for giving it a few brain cycles now. I'll raise
this again before the end.
I suspect a lot of folks see stuff like this as the minutia of merge
tracking, and I suppose it is! But IMHO inheritance may prove a bit
tricky to for users so I want to keep its behavior as understandable
and predictable as possible.
> In the meantime, you saw David Glasser's mail
> about this, right?:
Yes, I saw that and responded in that thread.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help_at_subversion.tigris.org
Received on 2008-01-26 01:40:39 CET