A belated +1 on this! Thanks for this simple yet huge usability enhancement, Paul.
- Julian On Wed, 2010-04-14, Paul Burba wrote: > One merge related item that came up was: '--reintegration should > tolerate sparse checkouts that aren't affected'. > > I created issue #3603 to track this. > > The good news is that simply removing the check for a sparse WC works > perfectly in the case where the 'missing' subtrees in the reintegrate > target are unaffected by the merge: The merge succeeds, no new subtree > mergeinfo is created, no errors, it just DTRT. > > If the reintegrate target is missing a subtree that *is* affected by > the merge, then a tree-conflict occurs. Subtree mergeinfo is also set > to partition the missing subtree so it doesn't inherit the mergeinfo > set on the root (exactly like a non-reintegrate merge does already). > > My question is this: Is that sufficient? [...] > [[[ > Fix issue #3603 'allow reintegrate merges into WCs with missing subtrees'. > > * subversion/libsvn_client/merge.c > > (ensure_wc_reflects_repository_subtree): Consider shallow WCs as ready > to reintegrate to. That's it! Nothing special, it works as you'd > expect. > > * subversion/tests/cmdline/merge_tests.py > > (reintegrate_fail_on_shallow_wc): Rename to... > > (reintegrate_on_shallow_wc): ...this. Reimplement the test to expect > success when reintegrating into a shallow WC. > > (test_list): Reflect test rename. > > ]]] > > Paul
