2008/2/28 Julian Foad <julianfoad_at_btopenworld.com>:
> Karl Fogel wrote:
> > Julian Foad <julianfoad_at_btopenworld.com> writes:
> >>So is the "force" argument appropriate for this API? It seems to me
> >>that it is redundant, and certainly it shouldn't be there if that's
> >>true.
> >
> > I think you're right, though a merge could result in
> > formerly-versioned things in the target becoming unversioned (because
> > they've been removed on the branch). There's no need to protect that
> > with a flag, though -- it's not dangerous, because unversioning
> > something won't cause the working file to be removed, and we already
> > know it's not modified, so we're not losing a diff.
> >
> [...]
> >>- * Perform a reintegration merge of @a source into @target_wc_path.
> >>+ * Perform a reintegration merge of @a source at @a peg_revision
> >>+ * into @target_wc_path.
> >
> > +1
>
> So I'll commit the attached patch for these two fixes, and propose it for
> back-port to 1.5, if no objections. (It doesn't tweak the corresponding Java
> API to match, so that will need updating separately. Does that need to be done
> before back-port?)
You cannot backport this without JavaHL being updated and backported.
Is that what you are asking? I have updated your patch to include
JavaHL and attached it. It passes all JavaHL tests.
--
Thanks
Mark Phippard
http://markphip.blogspot.com/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help_at_subversion.tigris.org
Received on 2008-02-29 01:43:10 CET