On Mar 2, 2005, at 8:13 AM, Robin Becker wrote:
> My svn repository is fine. I have only used svn to update it (how
> else) and now svn says it cannot perform a merge because svn has
> locked a local repository folder when trying to apply changes from one
> branch to another.
Here's the deal: anytime you see a vague "not locked" error coming
from the client, it means you've run into a actual bug in the
working-copy code. That message should never be displayed, ever. So
rather than complain that 'merge isn't being friendly', why don't you
help us figure out the bug. If we can't reproduce it, we can't fix it.
> I wouldn't mind so much if it were just to say can't do this because
> "...." or
> skipping this because "....",
It does, it fact, have a 'skipping' message. This happens all the
time: it's very much like seeing 'failed hunk' messages from GNU
> but just halting after an operation which takes 15-20 minutes and
> leaves the working repository in a partially changed state
What's the big deal? If 'svn merge' dies halfway through, just 'svn
cleanup' and then 'svn revert -R'. It's like the merge never happened.
It's only applied local edits, after all.
> Now I understand that I can get the actual differences out using svn
> diff, but I cannot seem to find the svn patch command so my normal
> handomatic escape route doesn't seem to be available.
You can 'svn diff > patch.txt', then 'patch -p0 < patch.txt'. Of
course, this only works for file-changes, not
> I see this "working repository folder locked" error has been mentioned
> several times, but there seems to be no concensus as to what has gone
> wrong to produce it.
It's a generic error, as I said. You should never see it.
> I get the impression I will be doing some diffing and patching.
Or... you could show us lots of details and we could try to hunt down
To unsubscribe, e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
For additional commands, e-mail: email@example.com
Received on Wed Mar 2 15:43:01 2005