On Wednesday, October 18, 2017 at 2:08:32 PM UTC+2, László Milu wrote: > > > > I brought up a wrong example, but let me give you another example then, > where this behaviour seems counter-intuitive. > > Again 3 revisions like last time, but only r1 and r2 affecting the file > I'm viewing, r3 contains changes in some other files only. > Again, you select r1 and r3 and go Show changes. > r2's changes will be displayed, even though that's not required to be > displayed in order to avoid conflicts, because no other revisions after > that (which I selected) modify that file. >
Again, you've selected r1 and r3, so the diff is shown between those two revisions. > > Also, with merging (excluding r2), it merges in the expected way, without > applying the changes in r2, even if it does end up giving a conflict in the > end. > So it is actually implemented there already, is there a chance to get this > feature anytime in the future for viewing changes based on the "merging" > behaviour? Doing a merge and handle conflicts just to show a diff is not something that I would implement. Sorry. Not just because it would fail in anything but simple situations but also because it would be very, very confusing for users to see such a "diff" - it wouldn't be a real diff anymore. Stefan -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TortoiseSVN" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tortoisesvn/d9946ac8-22e1-475f-956d-254b31166ca4%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
