On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 01:34:59PM +0200, Bert Huijben wrote:
> I don't think this label accurately describes the intended case of this test.
>
> Personally I think it is better to add mergeinfo on the TC-victim then to
> *add* non-inherital mergeinfo to both the direct ancestor *and* inheritable
> mergeinfo to *all* siblings, which is usually the only alternative. ("The
> least nodes with mergeinfo, the better")
>
> The label would say me that this is a problem we are checking, while you are
> really checking to see if a reintegrate would work.... Or at least that is
> what the log message says.
>
> We should try to avoid mixing wanted/expected behavior ("reintegrate merge
> doesn't work") with the implementation details ("unexpected svn:mergeinfo")
> here.
>
Do you have a better suggestion about what the test description should say?
> If reintegrate is really the problem, I'm missing the reasoning why the test
> is added to mergeinfo_tests.py, as there is also a merge_reintegrate_tests.py.
Is the question of which file this should live in very important?
I figured the root of the problem lies with creating the mergeinfo.
The reintegrate problem results as a symptom of that.
There is no good reason to create this mergeinfo because once the tree
conflict is resolved somehow the node was merged. So the impilict mergeinfo
inherited to the formerly conflicted node can be considered correct.
