On 21 April 2016 at 19:44, Stefan Sperling <s...@elego.de> wrote: > On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 07:37:50PM +0300, Ivan Zhakov wrote: >> On 21 April 2016 at 17:34, Stefan Sperling <s...@apache.org> wrote: >> > Implementation aside, I do think the option to merge the two directories >> > makes sense, even if they are ancestrally unrelated. >> May there are some implementation problems, but I think merging two >> directories makes sense: it's real world case during some refactoring. > > Yes, it makes sense, as I already stated (did you read "don't" where > I wrote "do"?) > Oops, sorry. I misread your sentence.
> But the implementation should work. > Any idea how can we can avoid the problems I have described? I don't understand all details, but I don't think that using merging code in resolver would be sufficient in long term. But we can use for initial implementation though. Also as far I remember sub-tree mergeinfo makes further operations significantly slower. Can we just leave svn:mergeinfo unchanged for subtree? -- Ivan Zhakov
