Mark Phippard wrote: > On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 5:30 AM, Julian Foad <julianf...@btopenworld.com> > wrote: > > It is worth considering printing an abbreviated notification. > > Given that Paul's proposal calls for adding a new section to the > notification process to show the paths that mergeinfo is applied to, > don't you think he accomplishes this goal? Even if the notifications > are perceived as overwhelming, they are still segregated to their own > area where you can easily ignore them. > > In addition, the trunk code no longer updates subtrees with mergeinfo > unless they are modified by the merge. So there really should not be > too much extra noise.
Ah, thanks, I hadn't remembered that change, and that makes a huge difference. Great. It's fine to issue lots of subtree mergeinfo notifications if lots of files were touched by the merge. +1 to adding the notifications as proposed. - Julian
