On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 1:39 PM, Julian Foad <julianf...@btopenworld.com> wrote: > Paul Burba wrote: > >> On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 5:15 PM, <julianf...@tigris.org> wrote: >>> http://subversion.tigris.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2897 >>> >>> User julianfoad changed the following: >>> >>> What |Old value |New value >>> ============================================================= >>> Status|NEW |RESOLVED >>> Resolution| |FIXED >>> >>> ------- Additional comments from julianf...@tigris.org Thu Apr 11 14:15:36 >>> Closing as fixed. >>> >>> Current trunk (which will become Suversion 1.8) supports merging to-and-fro >>> between two branches, automatically performing the right sort of merge >>> (reintegrate or not, depending on which direction the previous full merge >>> was) >>> to take all the not-yet-merged changes from the source branch to the target >>> branch. The release-notes description is at >>> <http://subversion.apache.org/docs/release-notes/1.8.html#auto-merge>. >>> >>> It is not perfect. For one thing, it does not deal correctly with >>> revisions that have been cherry-pick merged between the branches >>> in all cases (it does in some cases). However, it solves the basic >>> requirement. >> >> Hi Julian, >> >> Can we really call this fixed? As you point out it does not deal with >> cherry pick (and subtree) merges in all cases. Is there another issue >> for the aspects that still don't work? > > Well, I admit it's a bit bold to call it fixed, but I looked at what the > issue was asking for, and it's almost entirely about basic repeated syncs and > full merging to-and-fro between a pair of branches. Those merges were the > reason for opening the issue, so I think it's fair to close it on those terms. > > Of course we want to support cherry picks as well. I think the best thing > would be to open a new issue. I don't think there is on, so I'll do that.
Issue #2897 has a lot of discussion not terribly relevant to the problem, so a new issue sounds find to me. > But if you feel this "Reflective merges are faulty" issue should stay open, > we can re-open it. > > >> On a practical note, we have a test associated with this issue that is >> set to XFail: >> >> merge_tests.py 49 'avoid repeated merges for cyclic merging' > > OK, I'll take a look at that. Thanks. The test is of the criss-cross cherrypick variety. So we can probably just change the associated issue for this test from #2897 to the new issue. -- Paul T. Burba CollabNet, Inc. -- www.collab.net -- Enterprise Cloud Development Skype: ptburba
