On Thursday 15 February 2007 12:16, Phillip Susi wrote:
> > But that is immaterial to the discussion. We are both in
> > agreement that the contents of branch exist in revision 1 and
> > that branch exists in revision 4. We disagree about revs 2 and
> > 3.
>
> Yes.
>
> > I do understand the difference and I understand what you are
> > trying to say. Personally I don't think it is an issue, sorry.
>
> Do you disagree that an object should exist at all points in time
> between creation and destruction? Subversion maintains a timeline
> of the history of a file. There should not be holes in a timeline.
Phillip,
It makes sense to me that the merge should be starting from the
"copy-from" rev and not from the "copy-to" rev minus one. (it means
Frodak makes sense)
I was confused when learning subversion because each rev is global to
the entire tree. What I learned, which might help visualize this
merge issue, is that the changes in a diff come from a combination of
the range (i.e. -r1:4) *and* the path given.
What I mean is that I would have been afraid that rev 2 & 3 would have
somehow messed up your merge if included in the range, but it does
not because those revisions had nothing to do with your branch.
Since you were looking the revisions specifically related to the
combination -r3 and your branch path {i.e. svn log
-r3:4 /repo/branch}, naturally those were not found because that path
was not in rev 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Thu Feb 15 23:12:38 2007