Daniel Rall wrote: > On Fri, 20 Apr 2007, Raman Gupta wrote: > >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >>> On Fri, Apr 20, 2007 at 10:48:04AM -0400, Raman Gupta wrote: >>>> I can confirm the problem. This is another case of svnmerge.py not >>>> supporting transitive (or graph-based) merges properly. >>> I could probably write a test case for this, if someone else thinks they >>> could track down the problem.. >> A test case would really help -- the fix should actually be pretty >> simple -- just ignore any merged changes to any of the svnmerge >> integrated properties, and set them explicitly at the end of the merge. >> >> This would of course prevent merge information from other "distant" >> branches being merged into the current branch implicitly (the >> "illusion" of graph-based merging that svnmerge.py currently >> provides). Personally I consider that a feature -- since I didn't >> explicitly "init" merging with that distant branch, I don't want >> unrelated merge information from it cluttering up my target branch. > > TestCase_TestRepo.testMergeWithPotentialPropertyConflict (currently > XFAIL) in svnmerge_test.py is related to transitive merges.
That test case will pass with the patch I submitted a few months ago, although there was debate about transitive information being lost. Cheers, Raman _______________________________________________ Svnmerge mailing list [email protected] http://www.orcaware.com/mailman/listinfo/svnmerge
