Mike Dixon wrote:
> On 3/22/2012 10:19 PM, Branko Čibej wrote:
>> On 22.03.2012 22:33, Julian Foad wrote:
>>> Branko Čibej wrote:
>>>> I'm confused. What additional checks would --reintegrate do that your
>>>> common or garden merge would skip? What kind of check do you think you
>>>> can safely skip without throwing all the effort you're putting into
>>>> fixing the merge algorithm out the window?
>>> 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?
>> No, what bugs me is the assumption that the user gives a pig's ear about
>> whether the merge is "clean and simple" or whether the merge algorithm
>> has to figure out all sorts of cherry picks and criss-cross twists. I
>> very strongly suspect that the user doesn't care, she just wants merge
>> to do the right thing, every time. What do you want --reintegrate to do,
>> abort the merge if the user is wrong about "clean and simple?" Of course
> Hello, I'm a user. If I'm trying to bring a feature branch back onto
> trunk and the merge isn't "clean and simple", 99% of the time
> it's because I did something wrong. Either my working copy is in a different
> state than I think it is, or the branch in a strange state because of previous
(Or, in my experience, a common problem is the user issued the wrong source URL or is in the wrong target WC.)
> It's nice that svn will be able to handle more complicated merges
> in the future, but please don't remove the existing checks on standard
> operations that protect me from my own ignorance.
> I'm also the svn administrator at $WORK, and I can promise you that my other
> users understand the system even less well than I do. I'm not really looking
> forward to having to disentangle a reintegrate that was applied to a WC with
> switched subtrees.
Thanks for commenting, Mike. That's exactly how I feel and you've said it better than I did.
Received on 2012-03-26 13:12:25 CEST