Paul Burba wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 2:39 PM, Julian Foad wrote:
>> Paul Burba wrote:
>>> On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 4:17 PM, Paul Burba wrote:
The attached patch accomplishes, let's call it "2.5", because it
handles the more general case I outlined above, but not the case
repres
On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 2:39 PM, Julian Foad wrote:
> Paul Burba wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 4:17 PM, Paul Burba wrote:
>>> On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 11:37 AM, Julian Foad wrote:
So, what to do exactly? Options seem to be:
0) leave it as it is
1) detect this
I (Julian Foad) wrote:
> It took me a while to get my head back into this stuff, but yes it looks like
> this hangs together theoretically as well as fixing the immediate use case.
To say a bit more here, my concern was about the impact further down the road
of leaving the history of "automatic
Paul Burba wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 4:17 PM, Paul Burba wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 11:37 AM, Julian Foad wrote:
>>> So, what to do exactly? Options seem to be:
>>>
>>> 0) leave it as it is
>>>
>>> 1) detect this specific case and warn or error out
>>>
>>> 2) detect thi
On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 4:25 PM, Paul Burba wrote:
> fyi http://subversion.tigris.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4329#desc7
> explains my proposed patch in terms of how it changes the symmetric
> merge algorithm.
>
>
Without reviewing the actual patch, I'm absolutely +1
with what it tries to achieve
On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 4:17 PM, Paul Burba wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 11:37 AM, Julian Foad
> wrote:
>> Paul Burba wrote:
>>> On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 5:04 PM, Julian Foad wrote:
Paul Burba wrote:
> I found the cause of the conflict filled reintegrate merge. The
> automatic
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 11:37 AM, Julian Foad wrote:
> Paul Burba wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 5:04 PM, Julian Foad wrote:
>>> Paul Burba wrote:
I found the cause of the conflict filled reintegrate merge. The
automatic merge code seems to be doing the right thing re Mark's
Paul Burba wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 5:04 PM, Julian Foad wrote:
>> Paul Burba wrote:
>>> I found the cause of the conflict filled reintegrate merge. The
>>> automatic merge code seems to be doing the right thing re Mark's
>>> automatic merge above, the problem arises earlier.
>>
>> P
On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 5:04 PM, Julian Foad wrote:
> Paul Burba wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 11:54 AM, Mark Phippard
>> wrote:
>>
>>> BTW, how are you managing your branch? I tried merging it back to
>>> trunk to get an idea on the diff and there were a lot of text and tree
>>> confli
On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 10:21 PM, Paul Burba wrote:
> (Stefan - If you don't have time to read all this please at least take
> a look at the short questions at the very end)
>
No worries :) Thanks for digging into this problem.
General remark: I'm working at and committing from my
Ubuntu 12.04
Paul Burba wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 11:54 AM, Mark Phippard
> wrote:
>
>> BTW, how are you managing your branch? I tried merging it back to
>> trunk to get an idea on the diff and there were a lot of text and tree
>> conflicts. I thought I had seen you doing synch merges from trunk
(Stefan - If you don't have time to read all this please at least take
a look at the short questions at the very end)
On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 11:54 AM, Mark Phippard wrote:
> BTW, how are you managing your branch? I tried merging it back to
> trunk to get an idea on the diff and there were a lo
12 matches
Mail list logo
