[Svnmerge] Conflict on svnmerge-blocked property

[Piet-Hein Peeters]

Hello guys,

It's good to read the lively discussion. For svnmerge.py, I can say that 
we would be satisfied if the patched solution for the spurious conflict on 
the svnmerge-integrated property, would also work for the svnmerge- 
blocked property. We don't see the "lossy" handling as a problem right 
now.

Regards,
Piet-Hein









Raman Gupta <rocketraman at fastmail.fm> 
04/24/2007 03:49 AM

To
Daniel Rall <dlr at collab.net>
cc
dustin at zmanda.com
svnmerge at orcaware.com
Piet-Hein Peeters/BST/MS/PHILIPS at PHILIPS
Subject
Re: [Svnmerge] Conflict on svnmerge-blocked property
Classification







Daniel Rall wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Apr 2007, Raman Gupta wrote:
>> Daniel Rall wrote:
>>> I'm fine with that.
>>>
>> You are? Then my previous patch that fixes the merge property
>> conflict, and any updates to handle the blocking property conflict
>> will be committed, subject to review of course? Or did that part of my
>> proposal get lost in the quote trims?
> 
> Well, I'm not particularly happy about it.  I'd rather see someone fix
> svnmerge.py to DTRT, rather than use the proposed lossy handling.
> Given that no one is stepping up, the lossy handling seems like the
> lesser of two evils.  :-\

I agree, the perfect solution would be best, but remember that the
"lossy" handling is not all that lossy -- svnmerge.py will still
handle every merge case it has ever purported to handle in every piece
of documentation or code comments that exist.

I haven't yet seen a use case presented on the list that it would fail
to handle with this "lossy" handling.  So its really not that evil a
solution -- more like a neutral one :-)

Cheers,
Raman

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </pipermail/svnmerge/attachments/20070424/bdcb4792/attachment.html>