Re: svn commit: r1079592 - /subversion/trunk/subversion/svn/main.c
On 03/15/2011 12:43 AM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> stsp_at_apache.org wrote on Tue, Mar 08, 2011 at 22:51:52 -0000:
>> Author: stsp
>> Date: Tue Mar 8 22:51:51 2011
>> New Revision: 1079592
>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1079592&view=rev
>> * subversion/svn/main.c
>> (svn_cl__cmd_table): Document foreign repos merges in merge help text.
>> Modified: subversion/trunk/subversion/svn/main.c
>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/subversion/trunk/subversion/svn/main.c?rev=1079592&r1=1079591&r2=1079592&view=diff
>> --- subversion/trunk/subversion/svn/main.c (original)
>> +++ subversion/trunk/subversion/svn/main.c Tue Mar 8 22:51:51 2011
>> @@ -893,6 +893,14 @@ const svn_opt_subcommand_desc2_t svn_cl_
>> " svn diff ^/trunk_at_500 ^/feature_at_HEAD\n"
>> + " Note that a 2-URL merge can also merge from foreign repositories.\n"
>> + " While SOURCE1 and SOURCE2 must both come from the same repository,\n"
>> + " TARGET_WCPATH may come from a different repository than the sources.\n"
>> + " However, there are some caveats. Most notably, copies made in the\n"
>> + " merge source will be transformed into plain additions in the merge\n"
>> + " target, since the copyfrom information is only valid within the\n"
>> + " source repository.\n"
> s/within the source repository/within a single repository/
> (or other phrasing that captures the "Doesn't cross repository boundaries" semantics)
> Also: is "copyfrom information" a user-facing phrase?
I would say not. But I'd also say that we don't need to explain the
technical reason that copies are downgraded to mere additions. Just state
the fact and move on.
C. Michael Pilato <cmpilato_at_collab.net>
CollabNet <> www.collab.net <> Distributed Development On Demand
Received on 2011-03-15 13:59:15 CET
This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev