[Svnmerge] [PATCH] Eliminate spurious svnmerge-integrated property conflicts

[Raman Gupta]

Raman Gupta wrote:
> Daniel Rall wrote:

>> On an orthogonal note, Michael Haggerty was hoping to make
>> --bidirectional "sticky".  Did you have any thoughts on that?
> 
> I definitely like the idea :-) Just to throw out a couple of
> implementations -- we could prefix the merge property range with a "b"
> to indicate bidirectional stickiness. Or we could have a second
> property to store this info (though I like this one less as it
> destroys the all-in-one-place nature of the merge property).

Or what about just checking if the head of the source branch has merge
info for the target, and if it does, enabling the bidirectional flag
automatically?  From a performance perspective this adds one more
remote call for every merge but that's acceptable IMHO...

Cheers,
Raman