Re: Merge and reverse merge dont seem to cancel out

On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 10:16 AM, Peter Samuelson <peter_at_p12n.org> wrote:
>
> [Paul Burba]
>> But even if you reverse merge an uncommitted merge and forget to use
>> --force, then you can still just revert yes?
>
> Sure - but people may find it convenient to merge a large range of
> changesets, then un-cherry-pick a select few of them via reverse merge.

Hi Peter,

Just to be clear, this is the use case we are talking about right?

1) Merge -rX:Y SOURCE WC_TARGET

   Some subtrees are added under WC_TARGET.

   No commit!

2) Reverse merge -c-N SOURCE WC_TARGET

   Where X <= N <= Y
   N is the revision responsible for some/all
   of the subtree adds.

   --force isn't used so the subtrees in question are
   skipped and remain scheduled for addition.

I'm not saying this behavior is perfect as is, nor that I object to
anyone improving it, but Subversion has never supported this use case
very well that I can tell. Julian's proposed fix would go a long way
to making this work right.

Really my whole goal in getting involved in this thread was to point
out that what JetMark observed was nothing new and to try to answer
Karl's questions about how this use case is complicated by merge
tracking and mergeinfo.

Paul

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help_at_subversion.tigris.org
Received on 2008-07-25 17:19:27 CEST