Will Dean wrote:
> At 17:24 19/01/2005 +0100, you wrote:
>
>> Oops! That one has been present since the first 1.1.0 release. Why
>> hasn't this bug been discovered much earlier?
>
>
> I think many of us are so confused by merging that when it does
> something unexpected, we assume it's us.
>
> I just tried a 'dry run' of a merge into 1.1.3 (which I had neglected to
> update first), and it gave me some conflicts. 'Fine' I thought - must
> remember to update first.
>
> Until I discovered that the conflicts had *actually* occurred in the WC
> - so the run wasn't as dry as I'd hoped...
>
> I think we need a big push merging after the 1.1.3 release:
>
> 1. Sort out the confusing interface
> 2. Make it clear from the progress dialog if you're 'dry running' or not
> (and give the checkbox a more useful name than 'dry run', which requires
> an immediate visit to the docs to work out what it means.
> 3. Make double-clicking on dry-run progress dlg items do something
> sensible. (If it can't do a proper diff, we could at least avoid
> displaying mysterious error messages.)
Would it be unreasonable for TSVN to (optionally of course) stick
a property in that recorded the merge path and revesion number.
This property could then be read to populate the (default) values
for the dialog next time.
Maybe this doesn't work well in all merge scenerios, but in my
merge scenerio, if TSVN set a property on the directory where
I start the merge and recorded the path I merged from, and the
revision I merged up to, and then restored the path from the
property the next time I merged and restore the revision as the
'from' revision, it would sure make my life easier.
Maybe another check box 'Store merge parameters in repository'
Then, unless I'm doing a wierd merge, I get to just click go.
If I'm doing a wierd merge, I uncheck the 'store merge parameters'
check box, and setup my merge manually. (Maybe if the merge
parameters where loaded from the repo, but the user changes
them, they should be prompted to confirm if they want to
store the new parameters.)
Basically, what I'm thinking is that subversion could use a property
to take care of the 'make sure you record your merge parameters
in the commit message' advice automatically.
I'm sure the SVN improved merging support will be far better then
this when it comes along, but for the meantime, would this be
very difficult to implement?
Thanks,
Joseph
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tortoisesvn.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tortoisesvn.tigris.org
Received on Wed Jan 19 17:57:56 2005