On Thu, 2008-07-24 at 11:57 -0400, Paul Burba wrote:
> Now we try the reverse merge, and as in < 1.5 the files scheduled for
> addition are skipped:
>
> 1.5.1>svn.exe merge -r3:2 %URL%/branches/mybranch
> Skipped 'newfile1'
> Skipped 'newfile2'
> Skipped 'newfile3'
A good enhancement will be to compare the locally-added file with the
one that the incoming change thinks it's deleting (i.e. the merge-left
source), and only skip if they're different. That check is something
we're doing for tree conflict detection anyway, but can be done
independently.
I'll have a go at a patch to make this happen. (It so happens that this
is what I am about to work on for tree conflicts anyway.) I haven't
missed any reason why we'd not want to change this, have I?
> To sum up:
>
> Q: Want to reverse merge a uncommitted merge which added subtrees?
> A: Just use svn merge --force or svn revert
While true, this advice may not be very helpful in non-trivial cases
unless you remember in advance that you need this flag. When you have
tried a reverse-merge which results in this "skipped" situation for
certain files, it is then too late to try a reverse-merge with "force"
because it will have made all sorts of other changes to your other files
and directories which it will then try to repeat.
- Julian
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help_at_subversion.tigris.org
Received on 2008-07-25 13:52:51 CEST