On Mon, 2011-09-12 at 15:33 +0100, Julian Foad wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-09-12 at 10:00 -0400, Mark Phippard wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 9:50 AM, Julian Foad <julian.foad_at_wandisco.com> wrote:
> > >> If merge brought in legitimate
> > >> > changes to the svn:mergeinfo property. diff is supposed to show the
> > >> > changes, and those are changes.
> > >
> > > I said this is a choice, and that if we want to display raw changes to
> > > the property then that is a valid alternative but then we shouldn't be
> > > using the terminology "Merged: xxx" to describe the change when "xxx"
> > > was not in fact merged.
> > >
> > > Certainly the trivial way to close this "issue" is just to change the
> > > wording of the currently displayed messages.
> > I think this is where we differ.
> > I think this is correct and worth showing in
> > the diff output.
> I agree that it's useful and necessary to see the merge described as
> coming from both branch1 and branch2. Did I write something that seemed
> to say otherwise?
Oh, I think I see. It's the old confusion over what the term "merged"
In this thread I accept "merged" as meaning directly or indirectly
Received on 2011-09-12 17:11:21 CEST