RE: Do we need to store redundant mergeinfo?

Yes this feature is used by some enterprises (what percentage I would
have no idea, but it is always seen as a positive in training sessions).
I don't think we had the time or interest to put in extra functionality
that didn't come from community requirements.

Again, I don't think this list is an adequate way to evaluate whether
something is being used because the true customer base is not
subscribed.

Bob Jenkins

________________________________

From: Mark Phippard [mailto:markphip_at_gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2011 12:42 PM
To: Julian Foad
Cc: dev_at_subversion.apache.org
Subject: Re: Do we need to store redundant mergeinfo?

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.

-- 
Thanks
Mark Phippard
http://markphip.blogspot.com/