On 1/17/07, Craig White <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-01-17 at 13:09 -0500, Andy Levy wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I am confused but I need to fix this to move on.
> > > > >
> > > > > Do a:
> > > > > svn log -v svn+craigssh://email@example.com/home/app-serve/svn/th-db/branches/phase3/lib
> > > > >
> > > > > Find the revision where has been added (A) the file clwholename.rb for instance.
> > > > >
> > > > > Is it a revision between 52 and 138 ?
> > > > ----
> > > > yes, it is listed with everything else in revision 67...
> > > >
> > > > $ grep clwholename /tmp/svn-log.txt
> > > > A /branches/phase3/lib/clwholename.rb
> > > >
> > > ----
> > > I think I see a problem and am guessing that this is self-inflicted...
> > >
> > > the changes in trunk that resulted from the branch merge are all
> > > numbered at 139 which clearly shouldn't be since they were all done
> > > between revision 52 and 138
> > I think you're misunderstanding how revision numbering works.
> > Revisions numbers are global to the repository - each time you commit,
> > you increment the revision number.
> > So, if you took the changes in branch from 52-138, applied them to
> > trunk, and committed trunk, the repository is at revision 139, which
> > is what you're seeing.
> > What merging does *not* do is take each individual change that you
> > made in branch, and apply the change at each revision number to trunk
> > at that same revision number. Trunk will always show that nothing
> > happened between 52 and 138 if you didn't make any commits to trunk in
> > that range - it will only show that a large change was committed at
> > 139, which is the merge you did.
> > > I am thinking that if possible, I need to revert the 'trunk' back to
> > > revision 49 and then merge 52:138 again.
> > Some define insanity as doing the same thing over and over again, and
> > expecting different results.
> > I think you probably used the correct command to merge, you just may
> > not have understood what the result is meant to be.
> You may be right on that. When I look at kdesvn, I can see which
> revision # is associated with each file on the phase3 branch, but if I
> understand you, these files just show up in my trunk as a result of
> revision 139 - I guess that's what you are saying.
In kdesvn, you're seeing the last changed revision of each file. All
those files exist in revision 138, but they weren't all changed then.
> I can 'svn update -r 49' and my local directory is indeed back at that
> revision but if I then say - svn commit --message="something" Nothing
> happens, I presume because nothing has changed.
You can't commit if there are no changes.
I don't think svn will allow you to commit from a working copy that
you've updated to an older revision.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
For additional commands, e-mail: email@example.com
Received on Wed Jan 17 19:24:13 2007