I will add the revision numbers to the log when merging - no problem. You are correct that things can only work when everyone follows common practise, or - lacking knowledge - learns to do so.
-Stefan > Am 02.03.2016 um 16:15 schrieb William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net>: > > On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 8:31 AM, Stefan Eissing <stefan.eiss...@greenbytes.de> > wrote: > I can do that. However - smartass mode on - if one uses the actual > "svn merge -c NNN,NNN", subversion will track that and > > svn mergeinfo --show-revs merged ^/httpd/httpd/trunk . > > in a 2.4.x checkout will show it. But I am not trying to change existing > practise here that works. And with pre-supplied 2.4 patches, this > information might not be there - depends how it was created. > > Counter-smart-ass reply; while dealing in email/commit history through > viewvc and similar, the svn:mergeinfo is similarly clear and easily > reviewed. I follow both practices, svn merge for the summary you are > looking at above, combined with a log message that can be followed > by a later reviewer or troubleshooter. > > Please do stick with practice and follow the svn conventions in use here? > Those are always up for discussion but should be discussed and even > more-so agreed upon on the dev list. That includes attribution plus PR > and revision references in the commit log text (and CVE references, but > we will often edit those logs after a security release has been shipped > as not to call attention to the side-effects of a bug fix too quickly). > >
