* Vincent Bray wrote: > On 23/07/07, Joshua Slive <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Optimally you should include both the "Backport r..." and the original > > log message, but I don't think anyone will object to having just one > > or the other. Check out the script at > > people.apache.org:~slive/svn.merge > > which I believe sets that up by default. (I didn't write that script; > > Someone on [EMAIL PROTECTED] did but I can't recall who.) > > Thanks. > > > Merge tracking overall is a weak point of subversion at the moment, > > but is being actively worked on for future versions. > > > > I'm not really sure why you say that checking out at a higher level > > would help anything. The way subversion works, each directory is > > potentially independent. So it should matter whether you have > > ~/httpd/branches/2.2.x/ or just ~/httpd-2.2.x/. > > It doesn't make the merge any easier (that often works fine with two > separate WCs like "svn merge -r99:100 ../httpd-trunk .") but it would > allow for a single commit rather than two or three (hence making it > more likely that 2.0 would get fixes).
FWIW, I personally like it to see 3 commits, for easier oversight and "think-before-you-type" reasons. However, I do prefer separate xml and html commits, too :-) nd --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
