Paul Burba wrote: > > That (and your r1145653 edit) still looks the wrong way around. > > Because, unless I'm misreading the double-negatives, this function > > supposedly returns a set of mergeinfo that refers to *non-existent* > > path-revs. > > Hi Julian, > > Ugh, you're correct, I had it completely backwards. > > I suspect part of the reason this is so confounding is that > get_invalid_inherited_mergeinfo() answers such an odd question, i.e. > "What non-existent merge sources does a path inherit?". The sole > caller has to remove the result from the target's inherited mergeinfo > to come up with something meaningful.
Quite! > In r1148436 I replaced get_invalid_inherited_mergeinfo() with > remove_non_existent_inherited_mergeinfo(), which instead asks "Remove > non-existent merge sources from the input mergeinfo". That, to me > anyway, makes a lot more sense. I also reworked all the comments > (again). While nothing is radically different with the code, > hopefully this will save some pain for the next person through this. +1. Thanks, Paul! - Julian
