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

Re: Ready for RC1

From: Mark Phippard <markphip_at_gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2008 11:50:48 -0500

On Fri, Mar 7, 2008 at 11:47 AM, Stefan Küng <tortoisesvn_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> Mark Phippard wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 7, 2008 at 7:50 AM, Erik Huelsmann <ehuels_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> Well, my point was that if the code in 1.5.x troubles people we need
> >> > to get those troubles listed and out in the open so that we can
> >> > address them, otherwise we will never release. I think the best way
> >> > to feel comfortable is to have our users use the software and give us
> >> > feedback, and the best way to make that happen is to get to RC1.
> >>
> >> Did we get any feedback from the alpha releases? (anywhere? IRC, dev@, users@?)
> >
> > There has been a little feedback on openCollabNet. Nothing major,
> > just questions and stuff. One person reported a pre-existing problem
> > that Mike Pilato fixed when merging between different repositories. I
> > have seen some 1.5 questions on users@ but have not read and do not
> > know if they are actually using it.
> >
> > TortoiseSVN has been doing 1.5 nightlies for a long time and has an
> > active user community. Stefan, have you heard any feedback from your
> > users? The feedback we have gotten from Subclipse users has just been
> > about Subclipse questions.
> We had some feedback for the alpha release, but mostly that was about
> people not understanding the new features or specifically about TSVN.
> One issue that was reported about a merge:
> when specifying revisions like this "1234,1240-1237,1390", the merge
> actually is done in that order (first 1234, then 1240-1237, then 1390),
> which is not what the user expected.
> I haven't had the time to check, but last time I tried that (ok, I admit
> that was some time ago), Subversion 'sorted' the revisions before doing
> the merge. So that means that I either have read the docs wrong and I
> have to sort the revisions myself first before calling the API, or
> there's a bug in svn - my guess is the first (that's why I haven't
> reported it yet - I like to check first myself).

In your example, wouldn't you expect them to merge in that order
anyway? Did you write it backwards? Anyway, I recall bringing this
up and people felt it ought to merge in the order you give it and not
try to "outthink" you. In the merge client we built, we resequence
the revisions so that it merges the oldest ones first.

Mark Phippard
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help_at_subversion.tigris.org
Received on 2008-03-07 17:51:28 CET

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