On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 4:39 PM, Julian Foad <julian.foad_at_wandisco.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-09-08 at 12:37 -0400, Paul Burba wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 12:08 PM, Julian Foad <julian.foad_at_wandisco.com> wrote:
>> > Can I file an issue for this?
>>
>> Hi Julian,
>>
>> What problem(s) is the current behavior causing? I understand your
>> point, but I hesitate to add merge tracking awareness to diff unless
>> there is some benefit.
>
> I'm currently looking at merging from a high-level POV, looking at what
> clues and information we give the users about what they're doing, that
> hopefully guide them in doing the Right Thing and don't mislead and
> distract them. That's where this comes in: I do a simple little merge
> and run "svn diff" to check what's happened in the WC and suddenly it
> says loads of stuff has been "merged", not the simple little merge that
> I expected.
I do not think I agree with you on this.
As you say, diff should show what has happened in the WC. I do not
see why it should hide changes. If merge brought in legitimate
changes to the svn:mergeinfo property. diff is supposed to show the
changes, and those are changes.
If we want a WC to be more specifically aware that is has been
modified by a merge, then maybe we should consider that information in
the output of some of our other commands (status, info) ? Maybe we
need a new command or maybe mergeinfo should grow a new option to show
what revisions were merged into the WC?
It seems like diff is doing what is should.
--
Thanks
Mark Phippard
http://markphip.blogspot.com/
Received on 2011-09-12 14:53:53 CEST