On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 11:16 AM, Paul Burba<ptburba_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 11:00 AM, Mark Phippard<markphip_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 10:54 AM, Paul Burba<ptburba_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I'd like to make two changes to the svn mergeinfo command for 1.7 to
>>> address these drawbacks:
>>>
>>> 1) Account for Non-Inheritable Revision Ranges
>>> ----------------------------------------------
>>
>> +1 to this one. I think it is a no-brainer that we should definitely just do.
>>
>>> 2) Optionally Consider Subtrees with Explicit Mergeinfo
>>> -------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>> I'd like to add the --depth option to svn mergeinfo so these differing
>>> subtrees are considered. As above, revisions that are only partially
>>> merged to the target would be marked with a '*':
>>
>> I am not sure about using --depth for this. I think I would just use
>> -R. If you are going to use depth, then you need to make all of the
>> different depth options have some kind of meaning, and I cannot see
>> that being useful for this. You pretty much either want to just base
>> it on the target, or on everything (fully recursive).
>
> I agree that the use cases for svn mergeinfo --depth immediates |
> files are probably quite limited, but was under the impression that -R
> | -N have effectively been deprecated in favor of --depth?
Possibly. Not sure. I think in cases like this one, if that is our
policy then it is the wrong one. It also means you will have to write
the code to implement support for options that no one needs or wants.
--
Thanks
Mark Phippard
http://markphip.blogspot.com/
------------------------------------------------------
http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=462&dsMessageId=2383648
Received on 2009-08-14 17:19:22 CEST