Branko Čibej wrote: > On 10.07.2012 23:40, Julian Foad wrote: >> I think the essence of this line of thought is:
>> >> We set up all of the possible mergeinfo scenarios, and we see what 'merge' >> does, and we see what 1.7 'merge --reintegrate' does, and we debate what >> cases are 'supported' versus knowingly 'unsupported', and we see what an >> ideal symmetric merge would do. Then we evaluate the current 'symmetric'[1] >> implementation against that: does it do "the same as" or "better than" or >> "worse than" what a user can do with the existing merge (assuming he/she >> chooses the "reintegrate" option appropriately). >> >> It's not easy to set up all of the possible scenarios: reintegrating the >> root but excluding a subtree, for example, can't be done in a single merge >> command. Does that mean that scenario is uninteresting? No, I don't think >> so. What we can do is eliminate the existing merge command from the set-up >> phases of the test scenarios, and set up the desired mergeinfo directly: >> "faking it", if you will. Doing it that way separates the concerns: the >> question of what the merge command will do, given a certain scenario, is a >> separate question from how we can use merges to create that scenario. >> >> The question I have at the moment is: Does this approach to evaluation make >> sense to you? > > Am I correct in assuming that most of this discussion is a consequence > of the current implementation of mergeinfo inheritance? I.e., that there > are a certain number of hoops one needs to jump through in order to > determine which, if any, mergeinfo applies to a particular file (or > subtree)? No; the inheritance algorithm is simple enough. This discussion is about how to compare what "works" now (in 1.7) versus what "works the same" or "works better" or "works worse" in a proposed "symmetric" implementation. It's a matter of devising a way to enumerate all the possible the cases systematically, so that we have a way to answer the question "do all the cases that work in 1.7 still work in the proposed implementation?" - Julian > Assuming that retrieving merginfo is expensive (which I gather it is > right now) and you want to minimize the number of explicit mergeinfo > lookups, your approach makes sense to me. > >> [1] 'symmetric' -- Urgh! -- we must change the name as the current >> incarnation is not very symmetric at all. > > You can always try --symmetricer ... > > -- Brane
