On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 7:52 AM, Julian Foad <julianfoad_at_btopenworld.com> wrote:
> 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?
Hi Julian,
This seems like a safe idea. Out of curiosity, is there a common use
case you see where this is helpful (other than the reverse merge an
uncommitted merge one we are talking about here)?
>> 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.
Yes, quite true. But even if you reverse merge an uncommitted merge
and forget to use --force, then you can still just revert yes?
Paul
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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 14:26:12 CEST