Giovanni Bajo wrote: > On 7/28/2007 7:42 PM, Dustin J. Mitchell wrote: > >>> I agree. The only other complaint I would have here is that, in some >>> cases, the user may actually *want* to merge changes that came from >>> another branch. As an example: >> I totally misread the patch -- my apologies. "initialized revisions" >> are those where the *number* of branches being tracked changes, not >> where the length changes. >> >> I think this patch is good. Giovanni -- thoughts? > > [to avoid confusion, I hope we're speaking of this patch: :) > http://subversion.tigris.org/nonav/issues/showattachment.cgi/681/svnmerge_ignoreInitializedRevisions-2.patch] > > I share your initial doubts about the additional network traffic. This > change: > > - logs[url] = RevisionLog(url, begin, end, find_reflected) > + # Always check for property changes so we can detect initialized > revisions > + logs[url] = RevisionLog(url, begin, end, True) > > causes much more traffic for a non-bidirectional avail/merge operation, > because RevisionLog has now to check all property changes (via multiple > "svn propget" invokations) to realize that some revisions are (maybe) > initializations of other merges.
I'm +1 on this change, but then I was +1 when we had the first vote :) Regards, Blair _______________________________________________ Svnmerge mailing list [email protected] http://www.orcaware.com/mailman/listinfo/svnmerge
