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

Re: strange error with 'merge two different trees'

From: Simon Large <simon.tortoisesvn_at_gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 15:07:14 +0000

On 18 March 2011 14:05, Dave Thompson <kikanaide_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 9:31 AM, Simon Large <simon.tortoisesvn_at_gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> The /svn/!svn/bc/... is internal to the repository which is why it
>> looks unfamiliar. It's not even very useful as an end user message as
>> the internal workings are only of interest to the subversion
>> developers.
>> It's possible that you have your from and to URLs the wrong way round,
>> although I can't tell as I don't know what you are merging. But
>> merging trees is confusing and not very intuitive. I suggest having
>> another look at the help file and if that doesn't resolve it you need
>> to provide us with more information about what you are trying to
>> achieve with this merge operation.
>> Simon
> Here's the situation.  There exists an SVN, at www.bci2000.org, to which we
> don't have commit access but need to make modifications.  So, we created our
> own SVN repository off of an early revision of the bci2000 repository.
> Since then, we have been "merging a range of revisions" periodically to keep
> our code relatively up-to-date with the BCI2000 repository.  I've since
> learned that we probably should have called this a vendor branch and used
> some different terminology, but that ship has sailed.
> This process worked reasonably well, until they announced they had released
> a new version of their software.  It was created in a branch off of revision
> 2405.  We had merged our way up to 2960.  They did NOT reintegrate, they
> simply swapped then-trunk (which we had been using) to tags/bci2000.v2.1 and
> moved branches/v3 over to trunk.  I'd like to get our code onto the
> now-trunk, version 3.
> The problem is that I'm carrying around 500-some-odd revisions that weren't
> incorporated into the other tree.  So, I need to merge the difference
> between two trees.
> I've re-read the help file, and I begin to wonder if I am trying to use the
> merge slightly differently from how it was intended.  I want to go from
> revision 2960 of v2.1, to the head of v3.  The text in the dialog box
> implies I can do this (from URL= v2.1, from revision = 2960, to URL=v3, to
> revision=head).  Reading the help file, however, implies that I can ONLY go
> from head-to-head, and the "revision" box in both needs to be filled in with
> the revision where both branches were synchronized (URLs same as above, but
> both from and to revision is 2405).  Which one is correct, the dialog box or
> the help file?
> If the help file is correct, is my best way forward to merge my current
> revision up to head and then merge two trees with revision 2405 in both
> boxes?  If that's really my problem, I apologize for cluttering the TSVN
> discussion with this.  I mostly just thought that error message looked
> internal and horrible, so it might be a TSVN bug...

I think I understand what you want to do, but not how you have been
doing it. You have created a private repository based on an early
version of the BCI2000 code, made you own modifications, then merged
subsequent changes from the official BCI2000 repo into your own? I
didn't know you could do cross-repository merges.

As for the ranges, you have the order correct, but you are trying to
reference the tag in a revision where it was not yet created. Ignoring
the cross-repo question, this is what I think you need to do:

You have merged all their changes up to old trunk r2960, and you want
to merge everything that has happened since then. So the change set
you are merging is from old-trunk r2960 to new-trunk HEAD. The snag
here is that I don't know how to specify old-trunk r2960. On the
command line you can use a peg revision to specify it as
"tags/bci2000.v2.1_at_HEAD" which means "trace back the history of the
path which is tags/bci2000.v2.1 in the HEAD revision". You might get
away with putting trunk at r2960, and hope that it will use the path
that was called trunk in r2960 as opposed to r2960 of what is now
called trunk.

Good luck!


:       ___
:  oo  // \\      "De Chelonian Mobile"
: (_,\/ \_/ \     TortoiseSVN
:   \ \_/_\_/>    The coolest Interface to (Sub)Version Control
:   /_/   \_\     http://tortoisesvn.net
To unsubscribe from this discussion, e-mail: [users-unsubscribe_at_tortoisesvn.tigris.org].
Received on 2011-03-18 16:07:24 CET

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

This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.