On Mon, 23 Apr 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On Mon, Apr 23, 2007 at 03:35:23PM -0400, Raman Gupta wrote: > > The stopgap solution supports everything that svnmerge.py has every > > claimed to support. And it covers probably 90% of merge use cases. Its > > the old "don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good"... > > This argument makes a lot of sense. Also, most people won't be > upgrading to 1.5 immediately, so having a more capable svnmerge.py is > probably a good idea.
I'm fine with that. > > If you still don't think the change is correct, ok. I for one am > > perfectly happy with my patched svnmerge and I am willing to wait for > > 1.5 for the correct solution :-) If Dustin, or whoever, will create > > the test case, then I might update my patch to handle the blocked > > property conflict too. > > Ah, I thought someone else had developed a test case. I'll fix that up, > then. Thanks Dustin! - Dan p.s. FYI, there are some known failing test case in svnmerge_test.py, broken by a patch committed last year by Blair (r22788?). I pointed this out a while back, but the test cases don't seem to have been updated yet. I currently see 3 failures -- unsure if they're all a result of that change.
pgpQcqhof7vTP.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Svnmerge mailing list [email protected] http://www.orcaware.com/mailman/listinfo/svnmerge
