Re: svn merge - start revision off by one, and repeat merge is not a no-op

2010-01-25 Thread Julian Foad
On Mon, 2010-01-25 at 11:29 -0500, Paul Burba wrote: > On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 9:30 AM, Julian Foad wrote: > > The notification "Merging ... r891676 through ..." doesn't match the > > actual recorded svn:mergeinfo "r891677-...". > > > > Full Details > > > > I tried a merge in a clean WC of the bra

Re: svn merge - start revision off by one, and repeat merge is not a no-op

2010-01-25 Thread Paul Burba
On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 9:30 AM, Julian Foad wrote: > The notification "Merging ... r891676 through ..." doesn't match the > actual recorded svn:mergeinfo "r891677-...". > > Full Details > > I tried a merge in a clean WC of the branch 1@902803, using an > r902780M trunk build of svn. (I confir

Re: svn merge - start revision off by one

2010-01-25 Thread Julian Foad
Kannan wrote: > Julian Foad wrote: > > The notification "Merging ... r891676 through ..." doesn't match the > > actual recorded svn:mergeinfo "r891677-...". > [..] > > Is that difference in the start revision of the range expected? (The > > merge saying it's recording "r891676 through ..." versus d

Re: svn merge - start revision off by one, and repeat merge is not a no-op

2010-01-25 Thread Kannan
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Julian Foad wrote: > The notification "Merging ... r891676 through ..." doesn't match the > actual recorded svn:mergeinfo "r891677-...". [..] > Is that difference in the start revision of the range expected? (The > merge saying it's recording "r891676

svn merge - start revision off by one, and repeat merge is not a no-op

2010-01-25 Thread Julian Foad
The notification "Merging ... r891676 through ..." doesn't match the actual recorded svn:mergeinfo "r891677-...". Full Details I tried a merge in a clean WC of the branch 1@902803, using an r902780M trunk build of svn. (I confirmed with an r902508 trunk build that excludes the recent patch to