On 09/12/2011 09:58 AM, Julian Foad wrote: > I take some offence at that. Sure it's a not a problem that's been > proven to need solving -- and I agree it quite likely is low on the > priority list in pragmatic terms. I DON'T ASK YOU TO FIX IT. But I'm > interested more in the theory and the potential for even being able to > describe mergeinfo changes in some way that makes sense to the user.
Sorry, Julian. I guess I was sensing more along the lines of "The current behavior is a problem" (assertion) than of "Is the current behavior a problem?" (question) as I read the thread. Of course I wouldn't discourage anyone from stepping back to evaluate Subversion's behavior at a higher level. I guess I would just caution against not stepping back *far enough*. -- C. Michael Pilato <cmpil...@collab.net> CollabNet <> www.collab.net <> Distributed Development On Demand
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
