On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 12:05:00PM -0400, Mark Phippard wrote: > There is nothing wrong with adding it and I believe I have said that. I > have also said that I was in favor of solving the issue. All I am saying is > that Neels has done some good work looking at what that feature means in its > entirety and he has uncovered a number of things to consider. He happens to > not think they are a big deal, which is fine. I am simply saying that one > option we have is to not implement the feature until we have a better answer > for those considerations.
OK, we're on the same page then. I agree we need to agree on the points that are still unclear. > Merge remains a problem. Namely that if merge updates files with the > svn:hold property the changes to those files will not be committed. I would say just let it be that way. It shouldn't matter whether local mods come from merges or from manual edits. If the changes being merged into a held file are important, then there's a user error -- the file should probably not have been held in the first place.
