On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 7:50 AM, Hyrum K. Wright < hyrum_wri...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 3:43 PM, Daniel Becroft <djcbecr...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 7:34 PM, Philip Martin < > philip.mar...@wandisco.com>wrote: > ... > >> > I can't see any reason why all these files would need to be accessed. > I > >> seem > >> > to recall some discussion about preventing/warning merging into > modified > >> > working copies, could this be the cause? > >> > >> The new check is for a single revision working copy, not an unmodified > >> one. > >> > > > > Ah, that makes more sense, I guess. Checking for an unmodified WC would > mean > > that the ability to run consecutive 'svn merge -c' commands would be > > removed. > > You can run 'svn merge -c17,85,90,123' if you need to merge multiple > revs in the same operation. > Very true, but I've had some instances where it's easier to do one merge -c (postponing conflicts), resolve, and then do the next one. Not all the time, but occasionally. Cheers, Daniel B.
