Yes this feature is used by some enterprises (what percentage I would have no idea, but it is always seen as a positive in training sessions). I don't think we had the time or interest to put in extra functionality that didn't come from community requirements.
Again, I don't think this list is an adequate way to evaluate whether something is being used because the true customer base is not subscribed. Bob Jenkins ________________________________ From: Mark Phippard [mailto:markp...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2011 12:42 PM To: Julian Foad Cc: dev@subversion.apache.org Subject: Re: Do we need to store redundant mergeinfo? On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 12:13 PM, Julian Foad <julian.f...@wandisco.com> wrote: 2 3 4 5 BranchA--o----------------------------------------- \ \ "A:2" BranchB-----o---o---------------------------------- \ \ "A:2 B:3-4" BranchC------------o------------------------------- Philip and I were prompted by a customer to consider why Subversion copies mergeinfo from branch to branch, in transitive merges (branch A -> branch B -> branch C). Why do we need mergeinfo on branch C that refers directly to A? If, as I believe to be the case, Subversion only supports merge tracking if the branching graph is tree-shaped, then the only merges allowed to or from branch C are those to or from branch B (and those to or any further branches to the "right" of it: D1, D2). This statement is not true. You can still merge BranchA to BranchC in the above scenario. SVN does not have any limits on where you can merge from and to. -- Thanks Mark Phippard http://markphip.blogspot.com/
