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

Re: Do we need to store redundant mergeinfo?

From: Daniel Shahaf <danielsh_at_elego.de>
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 19:38:01 +0200

Julian Foad wrote on Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 17:13:41 +0000:
> 2 3 4 5
> BranchA--o-----------------------------------------
> \
> \ "A:2"
> BranchB-----o---o----------------------------------
> \
> \ "A:2 B:3-4"
> BranchC------------o-------------------------------
> Philip and I were prompted by a customer to consider why Subversion copies
> mergeinfo from branch to branch, in transitive merges (branch A -> branch B
> -> branch C). Why do we need mergeinfo on branch C that refers directly to
> A? If, as I believe to be the case, Subversion only supports merge
> tracking if the branching graph is tree-shaped, [...]

Can you define "tree-shaped"? Do you mean "DAG-shaped"? Does your
definition allow merging between sibling feature branches?

> It seems to me that we must have done this (propagate mergeinfo) because we
> intended that Subversion's merging should support merging patterns more
> complex than that. But do we? The big question for me at the moment is:
> do people in reality rely on Subversion doing kinds of merging that make
> use of this transitive mergeinfo?
> - Julian
Received on 2011-11-10 18:38:51 CET

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

This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.