On 18-Aug-11 21:01, Stefan Sperling wrote:
Indeed, multiple copyfroms would be nasty.
But I don't see the need.
I definitely don't need it, I just saw a use in having it.
My idea that you should be able to choose the source was based on a wrong
assumption. Now I realize merges are always asymmetric. Usually you commit a
merge of branches A and B as a changeset in either A or B, but even if you
commit as branch C, that changeset still starts off saying C is a copy of either
A or B, with some more changes to it (right?). You always have to choose A or B,
and you call one "local" and the other one "incoming" (by the way, I like those
terms a lot better than the "mine" and "theirs" used in the interface - they
freak me out when I merge "my" branch into "our" trunk).
That doesn't mean there is no case for wanting multiple copyfroms, if that is
what Daniel Shahaf hints at, but just that the fact that "local" is favored is
firmly part of svn's merge philosophy anyway, and I have no problem with that.
--
Stein
