Hi Axel, On Sun, 8 Apr 2007 10:33:48 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote: > On Sun, Apr 08, 2007 at 10:14:30AM +0200, Jean Delvare wrote: > > It seems that we lose the history of changes when merging a branch, the > > logs only show the merge and not the individual log messages. Is this > > expected? I guess so :( > > The problem is if you have two branches A and B and merge/copy over > parts of B onto A, then a file in A has semantically two histories, > one for the per-merge copy in A and one for the pre-merge copy in > B. Since the history of the B copy remains in B and also since the > true history of A != B, there isn't much choice. Well, some source code management tools do handle it just fine, git for example. So it's technically feasable. > It is also a conflict > of interests: The developer of branch A would like to see what changed > from his POV, the one in B from his own. Not necessarily. In my case, my wish is exactly the opposite, I would like to have an history of all the changes, whether they originate from my branch or not. > But you do get a marker for copies or merges that you can follow to > fork off A's history into B's. True, but that's hardly convenient if merges are frequent and/or if the number of branches is important. I start understanding why people working with many branches don't even consider Subversion. -- Jean Delvare
