On Sat, Apr 12, 2008 at 12:56 PM, Mark Phippard <markphip_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Apr 12, 2008 at 3:28 PM, Eric Gillespie <epg_at_pretzelnet.org> wrote:
> > "Hyrum K. Wright" <hyrum_wright_at_mail.utexas.edu> writes:
> >
> > > I didn't merge the whole branch, because I only wanted the modifications
> > > to CHANGES, not to the whole branch. Whether or not that was the right
> > > decision can be debated, but, hey, it's version control: we can
> > > always grab the other parts of r30112 later if we need them.
> >
> > Merging just one file from trunk is a perfectly valid use case;
> > it's the natural way to maintain such a file. I don't think you
> > did anything wrong.
>
> He didn't do anything wrong. However, if you do a single file merge
> than we have to record mergeinfo for that so that Subversion correctly
> knows that you did not merge the other files from that revision. If
> you know that you will never want to merge the other files from that
> same revision and you are annoyed by the extra mergeinfo that was
> created, then you have to manually tell Subversion that you merged the
> entire revision. In theory, I would expect a --record-only merge of
> the revision to the proper parent folder to elide away the
> file-specific mergeinfo. I am not sure if it actually does that or
> not, in which case you might need to propdel the property from the
> files in addition to the --record-only.
What I'm confused about isn't that issue; it's how the initial
transcript that Eric showed (which was incredibly slow, etc) differed
so much from my attempt to reproduce.
--dave
--
David Glasser | glasser@davidglasser.net | http://www.davidglasser.net/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help_at_subversion.tigris.org
Received on 2008-04-12 22:38:41 CEST