Thanks for the reply!
On Mon, 03 Mar 2014 21:58:09 +
Philip Martin wrote:
> I think the code attempts to classify which parts of the merge are
> direct and indirect but it ends up adding extra changes. If you run the
> log in different directions then different results are obtained:
>
> $
Henrik Carlqvist writes:
> On Wed, 26 Feb 2014 20:41:38 +0100
> Henrik Carlqvist wrote:
>> Now I have finally been able to create a small case where merge
>> information is lost.
>
> I didn't get much response here, do you think that I should file a bug
> report into the subversion issue tracker
On Wed, 26 Feb 2014 20:41:38 +0100
Henrik Carlqvist wrote:
> Now I have finally been able to create a small case where merge
> information is lost.
I didn't get much response here, do you think that I should file a bug
report into the subversion issue tracker?
regards Henrik
Sorry about the line wraps, I try to fix them with some backslash:
-8<-
svnadmin create /tmp/repo_test
mkdir svn_work
1 svn import -m "" svn_work file:///tmp/repo_test/trunk
2 svn import -m "" svn_work file:///tmp/repo_test/branches
rmdir svn_work
Since a few years (I think it was with release 1.6.17 of subversion) the
merge information shown from "svn log -g" has been changed. The new way to
show merge logs means some improvements like less redundant information
and better performance. Unfortunately, when using these newer versions of
svn t
