[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: Bob Jenkins <rjenkins_at_collab.net>
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 09:54:03 -0800

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


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>

                 2 3 4 5
                   \ "A:2"
                          \ "A:2 B:3-4"
        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 18:54:29 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.