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 Sreenivasan <ma...@collab.net> on 2006/07/12 08:05:32 UTC
Re: svn commit: r20576 - branches/merge-tracking
On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 03:17:46 +0530, <dl...@tigris.org> wrote:
> Author: dlr
> Date: Tue Jul 11 14:47:46 2006
> New Revision: 20576
[snip]
> +Phase 2
> +=======
[snip]
> + --record-only do not perform an actual merge of the changes, yet
> record
Why do we have --record-only in phase 2? I think it deserves to be in
phase 1 (completion of functionality - recording mergeinfo - wise). Any
special reasons?
Regards,
Madan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: svn commit: r20576 - branches/merge-tracking
Posted by Daniel Rall <dl...@collab.net>.
On Wed, 12 Jul 2006, Madan S. wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 03:17:46 +0530, <dl...@tigris.org> wrote:
>
> >Author: dlr
> >Date: Tue Jul 11 14:47:46 2006
> >New Revision: 20576
>
> [snip]
>
> >+Phase 2
> >+=======
>
> [snip]
>
> >+ --record-only do not perform an actual merge of the changes, yet
> >record
>
> Why do we have --record-only in phase 2? I think it deserves to be in
> phase 1 (completion of functionality - recording mergeinfo - wise). Any
> special reasons?
No, there's no particular reason for that -- none of what's in TODO is
set in stone. Adding the equivalent of a --record-only as part of
phase 1 seems perfectly reasonable to me.