2008-04-09 15:22 Paul Burba <ptburba_at_gmail.com> napisał(a):
> On Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 8:50 AM, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis
> <arfrever.fta_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> > 2008-04-08 16:16 Paul Burba <ptburba_at_gmail.com> napisał(a):
> >
> > > On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 5:32 AM, <arfrever_at_tigris.org> wrote:
> > > > Author: arfrever
> > > > Date: Mon Apr 7 02:32:05 2008
> > > > New Revision: 30390
> > > >
> > > > Log:
> > > > Fix svn:mergeinfo on the 1.5.x branch.
> > > >
> > > > Modified:
> > > > branches/1.5.x/ (props changed)
> > >
> > > Hi Arfrever,
> > >
> > > Why was this change made?
> >
> > Since r30349 svn:mergeinfo didn't contain many already merged revisions.
>
> Yes, I see that, but why did you get rid of the mergeinfo for
> '/branches/1.5.x-r30215:30236,30238,30245,30288'?
"1.5.x-r30215" was a temporary, short-living branch so I thought that
the mergeinfo for '/branches/1.5.x-r30215:30236,30238,30245,30288'
rather wasn't useful.
You can add it, if it is needed.
> Also, how did you "fix" the mergeinfo? Did you hand edit the property or use
> merge --record-only, or something else?
I hand edited it.
> And of course this all begs the question, why did r30349 change the
> mergeinfo on 1.5.x the way it did:
>
> >svn pg svn:mergeinfo http://svn.collab.net/repos/svn/branches/1.5.x@30348
> /branches/svn-mergeinfo-enhancements:30122
> /trunk:29085-29089,29091,29094-29107,29111,29114,29117,29126-29127,29129-29133,29135-29150,29153-29164,29166,29168,29174,29176-29186,29188-29189,29193-2919
> 4,29198-29206,29208-29251,29254-29256,29261,29267-29273,29277,29280-29281,29284,29287-29303,29305-29307,29309-29343,29345-29348,29358-29379,29381-29392,293
> 97,29399,29401,29409,29412,29414-29415,29417-29423,29425-29426,29429,29433-29434,29436-29447,29449-29466,29468-29478,29482,29484,29486-29487,29489,29491,29
> 493,29496,29498,29508,29527-29528,29531,29533,29539-29540,29542,29544,29546,29551,29553,29556,29559,29565,29567-29569,29571-29578,29581,29583,29591,29594,2
> 9600,29603,29607,29611,29613-29614,29619,29623,29625-29626,29630-29631,29633-29634,29642,29645,29648,29650,29656,29659-29660,29663-29666,29671-29672,29677-
> 29680,29692,29738-29739,29741-29744,29746,29751,29763,29767,29769-29770,29784,29786-29787,29797,29801,29815,29821,29824,29828,29835,29854-29855,29858-29859
> ,29868-29869,29876,29878,29883-29884,29895,29898,29900,29914,29920,29922,29925,29930,29939-29940,29942,29950,29958,29962,29965,29967-29968,29980,29986,2999
> 4-29997,30004,30009,30020,30030,30050,30054,30059,30061-30062,30067,30070,30074,30086,30098,30117,30124,30129-30130,30137,30145,30151,30159,30161-30162,301
> 80-30181,30185,30210,30233,30237,30239,30246,30249,30256,30321
>
> >svn pg svn:mergeinfo http://svn.collab.net/repos/svn/branches/1.5.x@30349
> /branches/1.5.x-r30215:30236,30238,30245,30288
> /trunk:29168,29326,29633,29645,29665-29666,29741,29767,29786,29815,29854,29922,29965,29967,30059,30129,30161,30180-30181,30210,30233,30237,30239,30246,3024
> 9,30256,30286,30321
>
> Hyrum - any thoughts as to what happened? I recall in IRC you were
> had some questions about how exactly to merge the 1.5.x-r30215 branch
> to 1.5.x. What did you ultimately end up doing?
>
> Paul
>
> P.S. Arfrever - I don't think we should go around "fixing" mergeinfo
> on our repository without a bit more discussion first! I'd rather fix
> Subversion than fix the mergeinfo and hide the fact that we may have a
> bug.
OK.
Received on 2008-04-09 15:34:29 CEST