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
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.)
This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.