subversion-commits mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Apache subversion Wiki <comm...@subversion.apache.org>
Subject [Subversion Wiki] Update of "SvnMergeTheory" by JulianFoad
Date Wed, 08 Feb 2012 15:37:12 GMT
Dear Wiki user,

You have subscribed to a wiki page or wiki category on "Subversion Wiki" for change notification.

The "SvnMergeTheory" page has been changed by JulianFoad:
http://wiki.apache.org/subversion/SvnMergeTheory?action=diff&rev1=35&rev2=36

Comment:
Add "Origin of a Branch" section

  
  ----
  = Appendices =
+ == Origin of a Branch ==
+ As indicated in the quote Brane at the top of this page, it shouldn't make any difference
in theory whether you branched B from A or A from B.  And indeed Subversion doesn't care.
 When tracing the youngest common ancestor of two branches (in terms of branching/copying,
that it, not in terms of merges) Subversion follows the "copy history" of each branch which
means it follows through both renames and branching.  The only thing that matters is that
the two branches have some common ancestor; one doesn't have to be a direct ancestor of the
other.
+ 
+ TODO: graphs showing branching B from A and A from B.
+ 
+ Therefore in most of the graphs here, the common ancestor is shown as not being directly
on branch A nor on B.
+ 
+ TODO: graph showing an indicative/abstract ancestor "O".
+ 
  == The Two Sides of a Merge ==
  TODO: Explain the idea that the result of a 3-way merge from branch A to B, committed as
B3, can be seen either as a change on B consisting of the addition of some stuff from A, or
can be seen equally validly as the change A2:B3 consisting of the merging of recent changes
on B into the context of A.  The fact that the result was committed on branch B does not matter;
the same result could have been committed on branch A, or on both branches.
  

Mime
View raw message