[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: Mark Phippard <markphip_at_gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 12:41:44 -0500

On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 12:13 PM, Julian Foad <julian.foad_at_wandisco.com>wrote:

> 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, then the only merges
> allowed to or from branch C are those to or from branch B (and those to or
> any further branches to the "right" of it: D1, D2).
This statement is not true. You can still merge BranchA to BranchC in the
above scenario. SVN does not have any limits on where you can merge from
and to.

Mark Phippard
Received on 2011-11-10 18:42:16 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.