Michael Willmott wrote: > Giovanni Bajo wrote: >>> Thanks Michael. Rich's related patch is here: >>> >>> http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.subversion.svnmerge.devel/310 >> I reviewed this patch and it is OK to commit it. There were some >> comments to unify it to my patch to not show block revisions in >> bidirectional merges, but I disagree with that, as they need different >> codepaths anyway. >> >> I would *love* if someone wrote a testcase for this though. > > Ok, I've produced a new diff against the current svn trunk and will see > if I can put a testcase together for this before I put it on the tracker. >
Now that the testsuite is passing again, Rich's patch (as is) causes a number of failures in the testsuite. Specifically 1 failure due to changed behaviour, and a number of errors related to return values from analyze_revs. I've produced an additional patch to fix these failures. When it comes to reviewing (and committing) these, would you prefer 3 separate patches (Rich's original patch, my fixes, and a new testcase), or a single combined patch ? -- Michael Willmott _______________________________________________ Svnmerge mailing list [email protected] http://www.orcaware.com/mailman/listinfo/svnmerge
