Its an ongoing branch so its not a reintegrate merge . We deliberately did the reorg on the branch so that once merged down further merges would be easy - so yes, I do want all the moves and renames to be merged down.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stefan Sperling [mailto:stsp_at_elego.de]
> Sent: 13 July 2009 14:24
> To: James French
> Cc: users_at_subversion.tigris.org
> Subject: Re: resolving tree conflicts
> On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 01:54:26PM +0100, James French wrote:
> > "or resolving the conflicts after they've been flagged in a way that
> > creates the desired merge result."
> > This is what I'm going for. I wrote a script that uses svn status to
> > generate me a batch file that contains per file svn merge commands
> > that attempt to re-apply the difference between the trunk and the
> > branch (ie restore the trunk checkins that got lost in the merge).
> > attempting to do the whole merge in a single checkin. Does this sound
> > right?
> I'm afraid it's hard for me to follow what you are trying to do.
> What kind of merge are you doing? Are you reintegrating the branch to
> trunk (the branch will be abandoned once the merge was successful) or
> do you want to cherry pick changes from the branch to trunk?
> What's your desired end result? Do you want the tree structures to
> stay as they are now on both the branch and the trunk, and only merge
> textual changes between files which are semantically equivalent but
> have different names or locations on the branch than on trunk?
> Or do you want the tree structures to match up after the merge?
To unsubscribe from this discussion, e-mail: [users-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org].
Received on 2009-07-13 18:16:34 CEST