On Mon, 2011-09-12 at 15:33 +0100, Julian Foad wrote: > On Mon, 2011-09-12 at 10:00 -0400, Mark Phippard wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 9:50 AM, Julian Foad <julian.f...@wandisco.com> > > wrote: > > >> If merge brought in legitimate > > >> > changes to the svn:mergeinfo property. diff is supposed to show the > > >> > changes, and those are changes. > > > > > > I said this is a choice, and that if we want to display raw changes to > > > the property then that is a valid alternative but then we shouldn't be > > > using the terminology "Merged: xxx" to describe the change when "xxx" > > > was not in fact merged. > > > > > > Certainly the trivial way to close this "issue" is just to change the > > > wording of the currently displayed messages. > > > > I think this is where we differ. [...] > > I think this is correct and worth showing in > > the diff output. > > I agree that it's useful and necessary to see the merge described as > coming from both branch1 and branch2. Did I write something that seemed > to say otherwise?
Oh, I think I see. It's the old confusion over what the term "merged" means. In this thread I accept "merged" as meaning directly or indirectly merged. - Julian
