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