On 7/5/2007 1:51 AM, Raman Gupta wrote: > Ok, I see from recent emails it seems we have new maintainers for > svnmerge.py... any chance you could review the following pending patch: > > http://tinyurl.com/3c229c > > There was lots of discussion about it, but IMHO never any good reasons > to not commit it. See this email (which never got a response): > > http://tinyurl.com/39h6x5
I think you raise fairly good points in your latest mail. I've never used transitive merge infos, and svnmerge isn't even supposed to support such merges. Also, I notice that this is the behaviour with -b, which is even supposed to be the default, was not for performance issues. It's also counter-intuitive that the quote to handle merge-prop conflicts is guarded by -b. I don't see a direct connection: it's just that, with bidirectional merge, it's more common to see conflicts. On the ground of this, I'll approve your patch (as amended by Daniel Rall with the testcase). People interested in true graph merge support are encourage to provide a more complete meta-merge implementation (manual merge of prop-merge conflicts). -- Giovanni Bajo _______________________________________________ Svnmerge mailing list [email protected] http://www.orcaware.com/mailman/listinfo/svnmerge
