On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 12:38:57PM +0100, Johan Corveleyn wrote: > I don't see why it matters that it's a "sub-branch". It's still a > (grand-)child of mybranch, so can perfectly inherit that mergeinfo. > AFAIU it only needs explicit mergeinfo if it starts to deviate from > the mybranch root (e.g. if something is (sync-)merged directly to the > sub-branch). Or am I missing something?
Hmmm.. I don't see any reason either. Explicit mergeinfo could probably be created later when the subtree actually becomes a merge target. I guess the current logic in the code simply doesn't account for the case where the copy destination is a child of the source? Not sure. Stefan
