Please use reply all to include the list. More below ... On 6 Aug 2013 08:48, "Fredrik Orderud" <forde...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 11:31 PM, Johan Corveleyn <jcor...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 4:20 PM, Fredrik Orderud <forde...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > What happens in r5 is that repeated merging of the same change does _not_ >> > cause duplication or merge conflict. Instead, r4 seems to be ignored. The >> > end result after r6 (a complete merge) is that r4 is missing from branch B. >> > This is inconsistent with svn:mergeinfo which claims that it has been >> > merged. Patches to reproduce are attached. >> > >> > Could it be possible to make svn merges fail on repeated merges of the same >> > change, instead of just ignoring them? >> >> I can't offer much real help, but ... I've read something similar before ... >> Ah, here it is: >> http://svn.haxx.se/dev/archive-2013-04/0205.shtml >> >> a somewhat recent thread on the dev-list. It's quite an interesting >> discussion IMO, so at least this gives you some context, and confirms >> that this is known behavior. > > > Thank you for the information Johan. > > At my employer, we have a change-approval process based on merging changes from trunk to a release-branch. This merging often happens out-of-order. This problem is really problematic for us, since we sometimes loose changes in the merge process, even though svn claims to have merged everything. > > Do you, or anyone else on this list, think it could be possible to register a bug report on this issue? >
Yes, go ahead and file an issue, and include links to this and the other mail thread in the description. At this point, I am not sure whether I'd call it a defect or an enhancement request (asking for a new optional strict mode for merging), I guess it depends on your point of view. But it doesn't matter that much, so go with what you think is best. -- Johan
