On 21.02.2013 19:15, Mark Phippard wrote: > On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 1:04 PM, Mark Phippard <markp...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> That graph is wrong or at least misleading. There have been catch-up >>> merges, for example this one: >>> I don't yet know what's going wrong, but likely something to do with >>> subtree mergeinfo is causing the mergeinfo >>> graph to think that was not a complete merge. >> I assumed the mergeinfo graph was wrong, because I recalled him doing >> those sort of commits. What I was getting at, was if the merge graph >> is wrong, then maybe merge itself is having the same issue and not >> trying to do a reintegrate merge. > FWIW, if I specifically add --reintegrate to the merge command it runs > fine and there is just a single text conflict. So that must mean that > all of the reintegrate checks for subtree mergeinfo passed. > > It sounds like when I just ran "svn merge" it did not pick the correct > merge strategy.
That's a great test case for Julian to look at before we branch. :) -- Brane -- Branko Čibej Director of Subversion | WANdisco | www.wandisco.com
