> On 03/23/2011 08:09 PM, Pat Farrell wrote:
> > On 03/23/2011 09:02 PM, David Huang wrote:
> >> If you're sure that the mergeinfo is bogus, why not just delete
> it?
> >> e.g., svn propdel svn:mergeinfo
> fnfapp/src/java/com/fnfbook/bean/FilterListBase.java
> >
> > I'm sure. I'll try that.
> > I have not tried it before, because I can't figure out what in
> the heck
> > mergeinfo was supposed to do, and there have been lots of
> comments that
> > it really didn't work properly in 1.5, and that it works
> differently in
> > 1.6, etc.
> >
> > in other words, I didn't know to do that.
> >
> > Or even that such as command existed.
> >
> > For me, blowing up all mergeinfo would improve SVN.
> >
> > propset/propedit/propdel is opaque to me, everytime I try to use
> it, I
> > spend an hour dorking around trying random combination of specs,
> > directories, etc.
> >
>
> Again, the SVN gurus need to listen to Mr. Farrell and myself here.
>
> Ordinary users should not be required to understand mergeinfo at
> the
> level that is being presented here.
>
> What is it?
> Why is it needed?
> If it gets screwed up, and you delete it, what are you losing? You
> must
> be losing something, else why have it in the first place?
>
> It's not right to suggest simply getting rid of it without
> explaining
> the full consequences of that action.
>
> This is how I got in trouble in the first place.
>
> Have to agree with Mr. Farrell:
>
> > For me, blowing up all mergeinfo would improve SVN.
> >
> > propset/propedit/propdel is opaque to me, everytime I try to use
> it, I
> > spend an hour dorking around trying random combination of specs,
> > directories, etc.
>
> Unless the pros here can do better than they've done in explaining
> this
> whole area is a real black eye for SVN.
>
> My repository is still at 1.5.4. I can have my SCM team upgrade me
> to
> 1.6.something. Should I do this, and would it help this problem?
It depends on what version you were on... but early versions of 1.5 did create alot more mergeinfo than was necessary... and also it was created in some instances when it shouldn't have been. I highly suggest you get up to date. However, that won't "resolve" this issue... although it isn't really an issue... see my previous email.
BOb
Received on 2011-03-24 23:03:27 CET