On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 4:39 PM, Julian Foad <julian.f...@wandisco.com> wrote: > On Thu, 2011-09-08 at 12:37 -0400, Paul Burba wrote: >> On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 12:08 PM, Julian Foad <julian.f...@wandisco.com> >> wrote: >> > Can I file an issue for this? >> >> Hi Julian, >> >> What problem(s) is the current behavior causing? I understand your >> point, but I hesitate to add merge tracking awareness to diff unless >> there is some benefit. > > I'm currently looking at merging from a high-level POV, looking at what > clues and information we give the users about what they're doing, that > hopefully guide them in doing the Right Thing and don't mislead and > distract them. That's where this comes in: I do a simple little merge > and run "svn diff" to check what's happened in the WC and suddenly it > says loads of stuff has been "merged", not the simple little merge that > I expected.
I do not think I agree with you on this. As you say, diff should show what has happened in the WC. I do not see why it should hide changes. If merge brought in legitimate changes to the svn:mergeinfo property. diff is supposed to show the changes, and those are changes. If we want a WC to be more specifically aware that is has been modified by a merge, then maybe we should consider that information in the output of some of our other commands (status, info) ? Maybe we need a new command or maybe mergeinfo should grow a new option to show what revisions were merged into the WC? It seems like diff is doing what is should. -- Thanks Mark Phippard http://markphip.blogspot.com/
