Paul Burba <ptburba_at_gmail.com> writes:
>> The --record-only merge produces no notifications at all. I need to
>> check status before and after to determine whether it did anything at
>> all. Perhaps --record-only merges should produce notification for
>> each directory where the svn:mergeinfo gets modified?
>
> Yes, it has always been the case that mergeinfo changes made as part
> of the 'describing the merge' are silent, for both "regular" merges
> and --record-only merges. It wasn't in the original design, but was
> discussed during development. IIRC the thinking that this would
> reduce confusion, but I can't find the thread. Regardless of the
> original reasoning, I don't see much evidence that many users
> considered this a problem, while I see *lot's* of evidence that they
> the more mergeinfo changes they are exposed to, the more confused they
> get, i.e. http://svn.haxx.se/dev/archive-2009-08/0045.shtml.
Your link show lots of users complaining about merge producing too
much mergeinfo but I didn't see any complaints about --record-only
producing too much notification; none of the links mentioned
--record-only at all.
I agree that it's reasonable for a normal merge to suppress
notifications about mergeinfo, but I think it's a mistake to do the
same for record-only merges. How is the user supposed to have any
confidence that they have run the command correctly, or indeed that
the command had any effect at all, if it produces no notification?
The whole point of record-only is to update mergeinfo, supressing the
notifications just seems really odd.
--
Philip
------------------------------------------------------
http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=462&dsMessageId=2426274
Please start new threads on the <dev_at_subversion.apache.org> mailing list.
To subscribe to the new list, send an empty e-mail to <dev-subscribe_at_subversion.apache.org>.
Received on 2009-12-02 11:21:45 CET