You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@subversion.apache.org by Madan U S <ma...@collab.net> on 2006/04/05 12:35:50 UTC
[svnmerge] question about the integrated and avail subcommands
Hi,
Why do the 'svnmerge integrated' and 'svnmerge avail' commands require a head option(in case the branch is tracked against more than one other branch)?
Why cant it list the integrated and available options against all heads available?
Example:
Currently,
madan@localhost /tmp/wc/branches/branch1 $ /home/madan/wc/trunk/contrib/client-side/svnmerge.py integrated
svnmerge: multiple heads found. Explicit head argument (-S/--head) required.
Why not:
madan@localhost /tmp/wc/branches/branch1 $ /home/madan/wc/trunk/contrib/client-side/svnmerge.py integrated
/branches/branch2: 1-14
/trunk': 1-5
similarly for the avail subcommand.
Regards,
Madan.
Re: RE: [svnmerge] question about the integrated and avail subcommands
Posted by Giovanni Bajo <ra...@develer.com>.
Madan U S <ma...@collab.net> wrote:
>> you know, what we need is 'svnmerge status'!!!
>
> 'svnmerge status' should list the following...
>
> /branches/branch1:
> r8-12: Merged by username on date at r13
> r15: Merged by username on date at r18
> r16: Hand merged by username on date at r19
>
> Empty revisions on /branches/branch1: r6-7,r13, r18-19
> Unmerged revisions on /branches/branch1: r21-22, r24, r26
>
> /branches/branch2:
> r6: Merged by username on date at r7
> r14: Hand merged by username on date at r20
>
> Empty revisions on /branches/branch2: r7-13, r15-16, r18-20
> Unmerged revisions on /branches/branch2: r23, r25
>
>
> Have I missed something here? (maybe blocked revisions should be listed
> here too :?
This is more a "svnmerge log", given that it goes through history. I have
been thinking of "svnmerge log" for a long time and I believe it would
indeed be an useful feature. We also have much infrastructure in place
(like, detecting the revisions at which the svnmerge-integrated property was
changed).
--
Giovanni Bajo
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
RE: RE: [svnmerge] question about the integrated and avail subcommands
Posted by Madan U S <ma...@collab.net>.
On Wednesday 05 Apr 2006 6:40 pm, Madan U S wrote:
> On Wednesday 05 Apr 2006 6:28 pm, Giovanni Bajo wrote:
> > Madan U S <ma...@collab.net> wrote:
> > > Why do the 'svnmerge integrated' and 'svnmerge avail' commands
> > > require
> >
> > a
> >
> > > head option(in case the branch is tracked against more than one other
> > > branch)?
> > >
> > > Why cant it list the integrated and available options against all
> > > heads available?
> >
> > "avail" is a remote operation that can take even several minutes on large
> > repositories, so I don't think we should be slower by default.
> > "integrated" is a local opeartion, so it'd make more sense, but there is
> > a consistency issue then.
>
> you know, what we need is 'svnmerge status'!!!
'svnmerge status' should list the following...
/branches/branch1:
r8-12: Merged by username on date at r13
r15: Merged by username on date at r18
r16: Hand merged by username on date at r19
Empty revisions on /branches/branch1: r6-7,r13, r18-19
Unmerged revisions on /branches/branch1: r21-22, r24, r26
/branches/branch2:
r6: Merged by username on date at r7
r14: Hand merged by username on date at r20
Empty revisions on /branches/branch2: r7-13, r15-16, r18-20
Unmerged revisions on /branches/branch2: r23, r25
Have I missed something here? (maybe blocked revisions should be listed here too :?
Regards,
Madan.
RE: [svnmerge] question about the integrated and avail subcommands
Posted by Madan U S <ma...@collab.net>.
On Wednesday 05 Apr 2006 6:28 pm, Giovanni Bajo wrote:
> Madan U S <ma...@collab.net> wrote:
> > Why do the 'svnmerge integrated' and 'svnmerge avail' commands require
>
> a
>
> > head option(in case the branch is tracked against more than one other
> > branch)?
> >
> > Why cant it list the integrated and available options against all
> > heads available?
>
> "avail" is a remote operation that can take even several minutes on large
> repositories, so I don't think we should be slower by default.
> "integrated" is a local opeartion, so it'd make more sense, but there is a
> consistency issue then.
you know, what we need is 'svnmerge status'!!!
Regards,
Madan.
Re: [svnmerge] question about the integrated and avail subcommands
Posted by Giovanni Bajo <ra...@develer.com>.
Madan U S <ma...@collab.net> wrote:
> Why do the 'svnmerge integrated' and 'svnmerge avail' commands require
a
> head option(in case the branch is tracked against more than one other
> branch)?
>
> Why cant it list the integrated and available options against all heads
> available?
"avail" is a remote operation that can take even several minutes on large
repositories, so I don't think we should be slower by default.
"integrated" is a local opeartion, so it'd make more sense, but there is a
consistency issue then.
--
Giovanni Bajo
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org