You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@subversion.apache.org by Stefan Hett <st...@egosoft.com> on 2015/06/24 16:20:22 UTC
is this mergeinfo redundant?
Hi,
I'm currently consolidating the mergeinfo records on our main
development branch and am looking at some weird record here...
Reduced the case to the following example -
Repository root/
Project1
trunk
src
SDKs
libxml2
branches
Project1variant1
src
SDKs
libxml2
the Project1variant1 branch was created from Project1/trunk at revision
184222.
Now I'm looking at the mergeinfo records on
Project1/branches/Project1variant1/src/SDKs/libxml2 and see revisions
which are < 184222:
/Project1/trunk/src/SDKs/libxml2:171866-172245,172247-172328,172330-172459,172461-172530,172532-172595,172597-172674,172676-172942,[...]
Am I right in assuming that these mergeinfo ranges could be removed,
because there's really no point in how they could be valid entries, no?
I mean the branch didn't exist in either of these revisions yet and
before the construction of the branch they would simply note that the
revisions were merged into themselves... Doesn't make much sense to me
at all.
Regards,
Stefan
Re: is this mergeinfo redundant?
Posted by Stefan Hett <st...@egosoft.com>.
Hi,
> Hi,
>
> I'm currently consolidating the mergeinfo records on our main
> development branch and am looking at some weird record here...
>
> Reduced the case to the following example -
>
> Repository root/
> Project1
> trunk
> src
> SDKs
> libxml2
> branches
> Project1variant1
> src
> SDKs
> libxml2
>
> the Project1variant1 branch was created from Project1/trunk at
> revision 184222.
> Now I'm looking at the mergeinfo records on
> Project1/branches/Project1variant1/src/SDKs/libxml2 and see revisions
> which are < 184222:
> /Project1/trunk/src/SDKs/libxml2:171866-172245,172247-172328,172330-172459,172461-172530,172532-172595,172597-172674,172676-172942,[...]
>
>
> Am I right in assuming that these mergeinfo ranges could be removed,
> because there's really no point in how they could be valid entries, no?
> I mean the branch didn't exist in either of these revisions yet and
> before the construction of the branch they would simply note that the
> revisions were merged into themselves... Doesn't make much sense to me
> at all.
For the record: Got the answer from stefan2 on this and yes, the
mergeinfo is actually redundant.
--
Regards,
Stefan Hett