Daniel Rall wrote: > On Mon, 23 Apr 2007, Raman Gupta wrote: >> Daniel Rall wrote: >>> I'm fine with that. >>> >> You are? Then my previous patch that fixes the merge property >> conflict, and any updates to handle the blocking property conflict >> will be committed, subject to review of course? Or did that part of my >> proposal get lost in the quote trims? > > Well, I'm not particularly happy about it. I'd rather see someone fix > svnmerge.py to DTRT, rather than use the proposed lossy handling. > Given that no one is stepping up, the lossy handling seems like the > lesser of two evils. :-\
I agree, the perfect solution would be best, but remember that the "lossy" handling is not all that lossy -- svnmerge.py will still handle every merge case it has ever purported to handle in every piece of documentation or code comments that exist. I haven't yet seen a use case presented on the list that it would fail to handle with this "lossy" handling. So its really not that evil a solution -- more like a neutral one :-) Cheers, Raman _______________________________________________ Svnmerge mailing list [email protected] http://www.orcaware.com/mailman/listinfo/svnmerge
