Re: Merge tracking and revision number fragility

[Simon Large <sl...@blazepoint.co.uk>]

"Guido Anzuoni" wrote
> > [Thrown out to the group at large]
> > So, do all svn users follow the book convention of
> > using a comment to indicate that a "merge occurred
> > with these source/destination revisions" ? Are there
> > any other techniques for tracking this that other
> > developers/Conf Mgrs use?

> Just a warning about the use of this technique.
> If the repository is dumped and not fully reloaded
> (starting at some revision) or is loaded into an existing
> repository with --parent-dir switch, then the comment
> will refer rev. numbers that were valid in the previous
> repository but the actual "playedback" transactions have
> gengerate different revision numbers.

This is one instance where the concept of a 'label'
which marks a prticular sub-tree at a particular revision
would actually be useful, provided that a dump/load cycle
updates it to the correct position. Maybe merge tracking
and labels are related and could be introduced together.

Simon





---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org

Re: Merge tracking and revision number fragility

[Simon Large <sl...@blazepoint.co.uk>]

"Scott Palmer" wrote:
> > This is one instance where the concept of a 'label'
> > which marks a prticular sub-tree at a particular revision
> > would actually be useful, provided that a dump/load cycle
> > updates it to the correct position. Maybe merge tracking
> > and labels are related and could be introduced together.
>
> I think the cheap-copy 'tag' still works for this.

Yes it does of course, and I don't want to re-open the long thread on tags
vs labels. The point I failed to make was that merge tracking is on the SVN
roadmap; user-defined labels are not. _If_ the implementation of merge
tracking uses something like a label (and I don't know if this will be the
case), then the user labels that some people have been requesting might drop
out for (almost) free.

Simon




---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org

Re: Merge tracking and revision number fragility

[Scott Palmer <sc...@2connected.org>]

On Oct 7, 2004, at 1:38 PM, Simon Large wrote:

> "Guido Anzuoni" wrote
>>> [Thrown out to the group at large]
>>> So, do all svn users follow the book convention of
>>> using a comment to indicate that a "merge occurred
>>> with these source/destination revisions" ? Are there
>>> any other techniques for tracking this that other
>>> developers/Conf Mgrs use?
>
>> Just a warning about the use of this technique.
>> If the repository is dumped and not fully reloaded
>> (starting at some revision) or is loaded into an existing
>> repository with --parent-dir switch, then the comment
>> will refer rev. numbers that were valid in the previous
>> repository but the actual "playedback" transactions have
>> gengerate different revision numbers.
>
> This is one instance where the concept of a 'label'
> which marks a prticular sub-tree at a particular revision
> would actually be useful, provided that a dump/load cycle
> updates it to the correct position. Maybe merge tracking
> and labels are related and could be introduced together.

I think the cheap-copy 'tag' still works for this.

Scott


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org