> -Original Message-
> From: James Hanley [mailto:jhan...@dgtlrift.com]
> Sent: Saturday, January 04, 2014 2:47 AM
> To: Ben Reser
> Cc: users@subversion.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Keyword expansion from merged changes
>
>
> > So in my opinion I don&#x
> On Jan 3, 2014, at 12:58 PM, Ben Reser wrote:
>
>> On 1/3/14, 8:59 AM, James Hanley wrote:
>> Can you expand on this - I am missing where the preceding differences would
>> be
>> an issue. From what I can see, if there is a delta, it is either the result
>> of
>> direct modification or a m
On 1/3/14, 8:59 AM, James Hanley wrote:
> Can you expand on this - I am missing where the preceding differences would be
> an issue. From what I can see, if there is a delta, it is either the result
> of
> direct modification or a merge - if the former, that would be the rev
> expanding
> the ke
On 03.01.2014 17:59, James Hanley wrote:
> Can you expand on this - I am missing where the preceding differences
> would be an issue. From what I can see, if there is a delta, it is
> either the result of direct modification or a merge
There is no guarantee that committed changes are the result o
On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 12:35 AM, Ben Reser wrote:
> On 1/2/14, 7:16 PM, James Hanley wrote:
> > I've used the Rev keyword in some of our code, and we noticed that there
> may be
> > a use case gap for the Rev/Revision and possibly Id keyword.
> >
> > As expected the keyword gets updated with any
On 1/2/14, 7:16 PM, James Hanley wrote:
> I've used the Rev keyword in some of our code, and we noticed that there may
> be
> a use case gap for the Rev/Revision and possibly Id keyword.
>
> As expected the keyword gets updated with any checkin, but there may be a need
> to have a merge-history a
I've used the Rev keyword in some of our code, and we noticed that there
may be a use case gap for the Rev/Revision and possibly Id keyword.
As expected the keyword gets updated with any checkin, but there may be a
need to have a merge-history aware version these keywords. Meaning that
the Rev sh
