[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: Does this need to be added to the #3668/#3669 revert?

From: Daniel Shahaf <danielsh_at_elego.de>
Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2011 17:35:03 +0300

Paul Burba wrote on Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 10:24:07 -0400:
> On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 1:06 AM, Daniel Shahaf <danielsh_at_elego.de> wrote:
> > [[[
> > Index: subversion/libsvn_client/merge.c
> > ===================================================================
> > --- subversion/libsvn_client/merge.c    (revision 1174351)
> > +++ subversion/libsvn_client/merge.c    (working copy)
> > @@ -6822,7 +6822,7 @@ do_file_merge(svn_mergeinfo_catalog_t result_catal
> >                                &inherited, svn_mergeinfo_inherited,
> >                                merge_b->ra_session1, target_abspath,
> >                                MAX(revision1, revision2),
> > -                               0, /* Get all implicit mergeinfo */
> > +                               MIN(revision1, revision2),
> >                                ctx, scratch_pool, iterpool);
> >
> >       if (err)
> > ]]]
> >
> > This reverts a hunk of r1035894 (the revision merging the
> > issue-3668-3669 branch to trunk).
>
> Hi Daniel,
>
> Yes, that should have been reverted, must have messed up some conflict
> resolution. Thanks for spotting that. Committed the above patch in
> r1174797 , nominating for backport in a moment.
>
> FWIW it's fairly harmless since after r1035894 was reverted,
> get_full_mergeinfo() no longer filtered implicit mergeinfo and any
> implicit mergeinfo obtained which is older than the requested merge of
> REV1:REV2 isn't used anywhere else in do_file_merge.
>
> Paul

In other words, the old revisions' mergeinfo would have been fetched
from the server and then ignored/discarded?

Thanks for the fix/information,

Daniel
Received on 2011-09-23 16:35:53 CEST

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.