Mark Phippard wrote:
>> 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.
That's why I haven't reported it :)
I thought that I had to reorder the revisions myself in TSVN first. I'll
fix this sometimes this weekend.
Stefan
--
___
oo // \\ "De Chelonian Mobile"
(_,\/ \_/ \ TortoiseSVN
\ \_/_\_/> The coolest Interface to (Sub)Version Control
/_/ \_\ http://tortoisesvn.net
Received on 2008-03-07 18:01:27 CET