On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 8:52 AM, Mark Phippard <markphip_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.
Do we have reason to believe that users are being "mislead and
distracted" by diff's current behavior? I'll admit there is plenty to
be tripped up by with merge tracking, but I'm not sure that diff makes
the top 10.
>> 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?
Or maybe diff should get a new option? --consider-mergeinfo?
Assuming we want a way to provide this info, I prefer the idea of
leaving diff as-is and using a new subcommand or option to provide it.
> It seems like diff is doing what is should.
>
> --
> Thanks
>
> Mark Phippard
> http://markphip.blogspot.com/
>
Received on 2011-09-12 15:24:44 CEST