On Mon, 2011-09-12 at 10:47 -0400, C. Michael Pilato wrote: > On 09/12/2011 09:58 AM, Julian Foad wrote: > > I take some offence at that. Sure it's a not a problem that's been > > proven to need solving -- and I agree it quite likely is low on the > > priority list in pragmatic terms. I DON'T ASK YOU TO FIX IT. But I'm > > interested more in the theory and the potential for even being able to > > describe mergeinfo changes in some way that makes sense to the user. > > Sorry, Julian. I guess I was sensing more along the lines of "The current > behavior is a problem" (assertion) than of "Is the current behavior a > problem?" (question) as I read the thread. Of course I wouldn't discourage > anyone from stepping back to evaluate Subversion's behavior at a higher > level. I guess I would just caution against not stepping back *far enough*.
Heh, well, I did present the thread as "the current behaviour is a problem". I guess I did it that way because it was a bit of detail (in Subversion's overall merge behaviour) that was easy to latch on to and easy to say something specific about what it *does* do, whereas the larger topic that I'm really interested in is currently quite hand-wavy open-ended thinking about what we *could* do, and thus harder to email about. - Julian
