On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 12:29 PM, Daniel Davenport <daniel_at_shockoe.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 12:11 PM, Jeff <jschneider_at_clrexec.com> wrote:
>> I'm sorry, I don't see this in the documentation or a prior post
>>
>> Say you have a file in the trunk with these 2 lines
>>
>> aa
>> bb
>>
>> Developers Y and Z create new, separate branches from this.
>>
>> While developer Z is still working in their branch, developer Y commits the file into the trunk. it is now:
>>
>> aa qqqq
>> bb
>>
>> Later, developer Z commits this file to the branch
>>
>> aa
>> bb
>> cc
>>
>> As I'm experiencing, the "qqqq" will be gone upon developer Z's commit. Despite the fact that developer Z never knew of the existence of the "qqqq" (nor deleted it), there is no conflict when developer Z makes a commit. It is the responsible of developer Z to ensure that they're not overwriting any thing that was committed to the file after the branch was created
>
> When developer Z tries to commit, they'll get a message that their
> file is out of date, and they'll have to update in order to commit.
> When they update, developer Y's changes will be merged in, and the
> file will have both sets of changes.
>
Oops. Didn't notice the branch/trunk thing. But what happens there,
usually, is that the merge will still have both sets of changes. The
only weirdness should be if the file has changes at the same place in
both branches -- in which case whoever's merging will need to resolve
the conflicts. Sounds like someone's just taking the lazy way out and
saying saying "use my whole file", which indeed would undo all the
changes since the branch.
------------------------------------------------------
http://tortoisesvn.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=4061&dsMessageId=2703452
To unsubscribe from this discussion, e-mail: [users-unsubscribe_at_tortoisesvn.tigris.org].
Received on 2011-02-11 18:36:44 CET