Re: log -g problem when performed on files

> As I recall from your example, you did svn log -g on the file. The
> file was not changed in r11. Only a parent folder was changed. If
> you ran svn log -g on that folder presumably it shows some merge
> output?

That's correct. So even when the svn:mergeinfo is present, the file has
to be changed in that revision *too* to trigger the inclusion of the
merged revisions? As far as I understand it's actually only a question
of the trigger, necessary information is present in both situations.

--
Best regards,
Marc Strapetz
_____________
SyntEvo GmbH
www.syntevo.com
Mark Phippard wrote:
> On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 9:43 AM, Marc Strapetz <marc.strapetz_at_syntevo.com> wrote:
>>> That is definitely the way it is expected to work.  There is no
>>  > possibility of changing this.  Subversion does not really know if a
>>  > commit is the result of a merge,
>>
>>  That's understandable.
>>
>>  > all it can really do is report on changes to the mergeinfo property.
>>
>>  So for my example Subversion doesn't knows at r10 but just at r11 that
>> changes have been merged so it could report the corresponding revisions from
>> the branch at r11? (What it currently does not do.)
> 
> As I recall from your example, you did svn log -g on the file.  The
> file was not changed in r11.  Only a parent folder was changed.  If
> you ran svn log -g on that folder presumably it shows some merge
> output?
> 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help_at_subversion.tigris.org