On 7/23/2007 4:35 PM, Michael Willmott 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 ?
Either way is fine. Rich's patch was very small, so it does not really matter. -- Giovanni Bajo _______________________________________________ Svnmerge mailing list [email protected] http://www.orcaware.com/mailman/listinfo/svnmerge
