[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

RE: RE: merge range of revisions or one by one

From: Méresse Christophe <christophe.meresse_at_nagra.com>
Date: 2007-05-09 09:38:34 CEST

Hi,

> > $cd working_copy
> > $<for each rev from rev1:rev2 do>
> > $ svn merge -r (rev-1):rev url_of_X
> > (rev1 is 'from revision', so it's not included in a loop)

You say that rev1 is not in the loop... But it is. No?
When rev=rev1 you will do:
svn merge -r (rev1-1):rev1 url_of_X

That's what you do not have when you do "svn merge -r rev1:rev2 url_of_X"
Your conflict may come from this revision rev1.

Regards
Christophe

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bosnjak Zoran [mailto:Bosnjak@iskratel.si]
> Sent: mercredi, 9. mai 2007 08:10
> To: Karl Fogel
> Cc: users@subversion.tigris.org
> Subject: RE: merge range of revisions or one by one
>
> Karl,
> what you are saying makes sense, but my observation is the oposite.
> I get conflict in range merge while one-by-one merge is fine.
> Do you have any explanation for this situation?
>
> Zoran
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Karl Fogel [mailto:kfogel@red-bean.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2007 7:58 AM
> > To: Bosnjak Zoran
> > Cc: users@subversion.tigris.org
> > Subject: Re: merge range of revisions or one by one
> >
> > "Bosnjak Zoran" <Bosnjak@iskratel.si> writes:
> > > Should I get the same result if I merge:
> > >
> > > - a set of revisions from branch X to my working copy, like this:
> > > $cd working_copy
> > > $svn merge -r rev1:rev2 url_of_X
> > >
> > > - or the same set of revisions, but one at the time in sequence,
> > > like
> > this:
> > > $cd working_copy
> > > $<for each rev from rev1:rev2 do>
> > > $ svn merge -r (rev-1):rev url_of_X
> > > (rev1 is 'from revision', so it's not included in a loop)
> > >
> > > I have 96 revisions to merge.
> > > In the first approach I end up with one conflicted file.
> > > But in the second approach I get no conflicts.
> > > The reset of the branch is merged correctly.
> > > (observed on svn 1.4.3)
> > >
> > > Where is the trick?
> >
> > You can get different results, because later changes can cancel out
> > (undo) earlier ones. For example, say r22 is a reversion
> of r21, and
> > r21 conflicts with something in the working copy you're
> merging into.
> > If you do the one-by-one merge, you'll encounter the
> conflict, but if
> > you do the range merge (which just merges in the diff between the
> > endpoints), you won't get the conflict.
> >
> > -Karl
> >
> > --
> > Subversion support & consulting <>
> > http://producingoss.com/consulting.html
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Wed May 9 09:38:56 2007

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Users mailing list.