On 10.07.2012 23:40, Julian Foad wrote:
> I think the essence of this line of thought is:
>
> We set up all of the possible mergeinfo scenarios, and we see what 'merge' does, and we see what 1.7 'merge --reintegrate' does, and we debate what cases are 'supported' versus knowingly 'unsupported', and we see what an ideal symmetric merge would do. Then we evaluate the current 'symmetric'[1] implementation against that: does it do "the same as" or "better than" or "worse than" what a user can do with the existing merge (assuming he/she chooses the "reintegrate" option appropriately).
>
> It's not easy to set up all of the possible scenarios: reintegrating the root but excluding a subtree, for example, can't be done in a single merge command. Does that mean that scenario is uninteresting? No, I don't think so. What we can do is eliminate the existing merge command from the set-up phases of the test scenarios, and set up the desired mergeinfo directly: "faking it", if you will. Doing it that way separates the concerns: the question of what the merge command will do, given a certain scenario, is a separate question from how we can use merges to create that scenario.
>
>
> The question I have at the moment is: Does this approach to evaluation make sense to you?
Am I correct in assuming that most of this discussion is a consequence
of the current implementation of mergeinfo inheritance? I.e., that there
are a certain number of hoops one needs to jump through in order to
determine which, if any, mergeinfo applies to a particular file (or
subtree)?
Assuming that retrieving merginfo is expensive (which I gather it is
right now) and you want to minimize the number of explicit mergeinfo
lookups, your approach makes sense to me.
> [1] 'symmetric' -- Urgh! -- we must change the name as the current incarnation is not very symmetric at all.
You can always try --symmetricer ...
-- Brane
--
Certified & Supported Apache Subversion Downloads:
http://www.wandisco.com/subversion/download
Received on 2012-07-11 06:19:42 CEST