Julian Foad wrote on Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 17:13:41 +0000: > 2 3 4 5 > BranchA--o----------------------------------------- > \ > \ "A:2" > BranchB-----o---o---------------------------------- > \ > \ "A:2 B:3-4" > BranchC------------o------------------------------- > > Philip and I were prompted by a customer to consider why Subversion copies > mergeinfo from branch to branch, in transitive merges (branch A -> branch B > -> branch C). Why do we need mergeinfo on branch C that refers directly to > A? If, as I believe to be the case, Subversion only supports merge > tracking if the branching graph is tree-shaped, [...]
Can you define "tree-shaped"? Do you mean "DAG-shaped"? Does your definition allow merging between sibling feature branches? > > It seems to me that we must have done this (propagate mergeinfo) because we > intended that Subversion's merging should support merging patterns more > complex than that. But do we? The big question for me at the moment is: > do people in reality rely on Subversion doing kinds of merging that make > use of this transitive mergeinfo? > > - Julian
