> So, there's an automatic merge that happens on a daily basis? You
> should be able to review the log to see when a revision was applied,
> and use this as a basis for selecting a revision?
I guess you're correct. These questions are coming from problems I have
had but problems I am forecasting. I am implementing subversion in
place of PVCS and some users have concerns about the great new features
of subversion. I keep getting questions about "how do I do this" and
"what do I do if this happens" etc. All questions are usually aimed and
the "stupid" user. I would hope I don't have any of those using this
but history would indicate otherwise.
> I guess I'm not sure what triggers this automatic merge? So now, if
> you attempt to update to a particular revision, the auto-update will
> get kicked off straight away? If this is the case, won't any other
> means of backuping out an update do the same thing?
Merges will be automatic on any text file. I can change the mime type
property of the files but this is just silly as more often than not the
automatic merge will suffice. To clarify, say I am at revision 1 of a
particular file, and I make updates and commit these but I can't because
the HEAD is at revision 5. I am forced to update or branch. I choose
to update and an automatic merge happens (no conflicts). Let say now
that I did this in error and can't remember where I came from (I want to
go back to 1). The only reason I could think I would want to do this is
if I made the wrong decision and intended to branch instead. If the
working copy new where it was before the merge I could then go back to
that revision and create a branch from there. It is really just a book
keeping thing. Perhaps too much work for little gain. Keeping in mind
I am only forecasting problems not actually encountering these (yet).
> It seems odd that you want to automatically update a working copy for
> a developer who is not paying attention, but allow them to make
> updates in the working copy. From my ignorant point of view, I can't
> understand why you'd want an unaware developer making changes to
> It sounds like you have an automated update (I guess for a good
> reason). But then you've got someone making changes in the working
> copy, and when you have the local changes, you don't want any more
> updates. Looks like you have a few options:
> 1) disable the automatic update.
I think I can only do this by setting the mime-type property of all the
files. Is there another way?
> 2) update the automated process to only update the working copy if
> there are no changes to it. If the status reports any changes, don't
> do the update.
I could do this with a script but the user interface we plan to use is
tortoise, and again trying to accommodate the unaware user.
> The only thing Tortoise could provide is a "Revert to last revision",
> which will essentially look at the log to get the revision before the
> last changes. But, even the most unaware developer would be able to
> extract that from a log file if their build is not working..
Sorry for the hypothetical questions and wasting time. I am just trying
to give answers to difficult questions which may or may not actually be
To unsubscribe, e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
For additional commands, e-mail: email@example.com
Received on Tue Feb 13 02:35:31 2007