On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 1:59 AM, Cooke, Mark <mark.co...@siemens.com> wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: KARR, DAVID [mailto:dk0...@att.com] >> Sent: 12 July 2012 00:39 >> To: users@subversion.apache.org >> Subject: If our SVN server is 1.6.12, why don't I see older >> merge history on elements merged from branch to trunk? >> >> It appears that our SVN on our server was recently upgraded >> from a version before merge history tracking was implemented, >> to version 1.6.x, where merge history should be available. > > I wonder why a "recent" upgrade used 1.6.x instead of 1.7.x...
I can answer that one. Many high stability OS distributions, like RHEL, are *loathe* to upgrade important components to versions that cannot interact well with previously supplied versions systems. Using 1.7.x breaks clients and makes them inaccessible 1.6.x clients: this has been going on with every major version upgrade. It's why I SRPM building tools for 1.7.5 at http://www.github.com/nkadel, capable of building for RHEL 4, 5, and 6, and have been pushing updates to Repoforge for some time. (RHEL 4 is still Subversion 1.1.4. E-e-e-e-e-w-w-w-w-w!) >> However, I checked the SVN history for an element that I made >> changes to on a branch, and I looked at that same element >> after it was merged (by someone else) to the trunk. My >> changes are in that file, but the SVN history doesn't include >> the checkin that I did. Is this simply happening because of >> how the merge to trunk was done? Is there a particular way >> that merges have to be done to preserve merge history? > > It sounds like you are expecting merge history to magically appear for merges > done _before_ the server was upgraded? In that case, no, svn does not go > back and try to re-create history (I suspect that would be at best an > error-prone exercise) but you should start to see info being added going > forward. > > Or did I misunderstand your question? > > ~ mark c > Very good point, Mark.
