On 22 June 2010 00:23, Simonson, Lucanus J <lucanus.j.simonson@intel.com> wrote:
Thomas Klimpel wrote:
Why did you "checkin" instead of "merge"?
We tend to be quite loose in our meaning of the word 'merge'. Although this can be annoying at times.
You had asked for permission to "merge", not for permission to do an "initial checkin". I'm not subversion expert enough to know whether this will cause trouble for the merge tracking or not, but I don't understand why you preferred an "initial checkin" over the recommended "merge".
Because I am used to using add and commit and less used to using merge. I am not an SVN expert either.
This is understandable, especially since we might be migrating to another version control system in the future. It's quite easy to add the metadata a later date anyway. We tried to get everyone to use svnmerge.py a while ago (before subversion had merge tracking) and it didn't work out. I don't expect we'll be able to get full use of subversion's built in merge tracking either. So library maintainers treat their library's sub-directories however they want. When I'm updating shared directories and files (e.g. status), I try to leave the metadata in a reasonable state. FWIW, FreeBSD's guide to merging is fairly relevant: http://wiki.freebsd.org/SubversionPrimer/Merging Looking at their rules for selecting the source and target, we frequently break 1,2 and 3. Rules 4 to 9 don't apply to us. Daniel