On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 11:58:18PM +0000, Daniel Shahaf wrote: > r1485501 touches both the 1.6.23 and 1.7.10 sections, so it would conflict if > merged. So I didn't merge it, instead, I applied the change by hand. When I > tried to record-only merge that revision (to a pristine 1.6.x working copy, > using an 1.8.0-rc2 client), I got mergeinfo changes on numerous files in the > tree. Transcript attached. I would have expected only ./CHANGES to have > property modifications, not any other file in the tree. Is there a bug in the > behaviour recorded in the transcript?
This is a known issue with --record-only merges. They always update all subtree mergeinfo. I guess fixes are very welcome :)
