Re: Symmetric Merge
From: Julian Foad <julianfoad_at_btopenworld.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2012 21:33:44 +0000 (GMT)
>> Julian Foad wrote:
>>> I suggest we should leave the --reintegrate option available,
Mark Phippard wrote:
Yes and yes.
>> Or are you saying that 1 and 2 will be the same no matter what and the
No. In either case, the code will figure out (in just the same way) what merge needs to happen. The high-level meaning of the "reintegrate" option would be merely something like "I believe I'm merging into a clean simple WC and I haven't been doing any cherry picking, so please alert me if you detect otherwise".
>> As an API consumer via JavaHL, I would assume I will just have a
Yes.
Branko Čibej wrote:
The checks of target WC state mentioned above. Of course, the name "reintegrate" would then be less than appropriate, and we could consider a new name that makes more sense for that "I expect this to be a clean simple merge" kind of meaning. Is the use of an asymmetric-sounding option name for a now-symmetric functionality what was making you uncomfortable?
> I've been assuming all along that --reintegrate would simply become a
We could do that, but I believe the checks it does are useful in that kind of scenario. (I even have an idea how we might want to expand the checks further.)
- Julian
|
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.