Hi Johan and thanks for the reply. I made a very simple reproduction script and attached it to this mail, the behavior seems to be easy to reproduce. Haven't made a reproducton script before so I'm not sure how you want the issue to be explained, but I first did the behavior that I think is incorrect and did a status+echo and then the same from a subdirectory with a second status+echo.
If you instead wanted me to make a bug report on the tracker, let me know. /Chris -------------------------------------------- On Fri, 4/13/18, Johan Corveleyn <jcor...@gmail.com> wrote: Subject: Re: Inconsistent merge on subdirectory behavior? To: "Chris" <devnullacco...@yahoo.se> Cc: "Subversion" <firstname.lastname@example.org> Date: Friday, April 13, 2018, 2:49 PM On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 4:56 PM, Chris <devnullacco...@yahoo.se> wrote: > I wanted to reverse-merge some accidental changes on a subdirectory on my branch and svn really confuses me in this. Is the below behavior from subversion intended or have I stubled on a bug? > > I wanted to reverse-merge revision 1000 on all the files in the directory "sub/dir", below illustrated with only one file. > > wcroot> svn diff --summarize -c 1000 sub/dir > M sub/dir/foobar.txt > wcroot> svn merge -c -1000 sub/dir > --- Recording mergeinfo for reverse merge of r1000 into '.': > U . > So the file sub/dir/foobar.txt is not reverse-merged (and the merge info is elided even though the output does not say so) > > I tried a few different versions of this with e.g. -r 1000:999 with identical results. > > Then I did the following, which I thought would be more of the same: > > wcroot> cd foo/bar > wcroot/foo/bar> svn merge -c -1000 . > --- Reverse-merging r1000 into '.': > U sub/dir/foobar.txt > --- Recording mergeinfo for reverse merge of r1000 into '.': > G . > --- Eliding mergeinfo from '.': > U . > > So now it does what I wanted to. > > Is it intended that merge should do different things if I use "." or "sub/dir" as my WCTARGET? I find it confusing and it was mostly luck that I stumbled on the right solution. "svn help merge" does not seem to indicate that these two use cases should be any different, but I may misread it. > Btw, this was done with "svn, version 1.9.5 (r1770682)" > > TIA, > Chris Hi Chris, That does seem strange. However it's quite hard to diagnose this from your description alone, because there are a lot of things that can play a role in the merge algorithm. Would you be able to come up with a reproduction script, or even just a transcript of you reproducing the issue, starting from a clean repository ('svnadmin create'; ...)? For a reproduction script you could use the repro-template.sh or repro-template.bat linked from here: https://subversion.apache.org/docs/community-guide/issues.html#reporting-bugs Thanks, -- Johan