On 19.04.2012 16:56, Julian Foad wrote: > To get symmetric behaviour, the problem is it's freakin' hard to untangle the > subtree support and the mixed-rev support and the missing-subtree support and > everything from the basic merge algorithm outline, in the existing code. And > the problem is not so much at a coding level, but rather a matter of > understanding what, in fact, the semantics are that we're intending to > implement currently.
By the way, I'm all for removing support for merging into mixed-revision and/or switched-subtree working copies. There's too much room for unexpected results in these cases. -- Brane
