I've spent a fair deal of time looking for an answer to this, and I'm left
with the feeling that I may be out of luck until version 1.5 is out. I'm
hoping, however, that someone has a solution I can use now...
Basically, we have a setup like this:
/project/branches/[time_stamp] <---many of these
We have a set of automated scripts we wrote that create these time-stamped
branches. These branches are used for pre-production. Our staging and
production servers are running the code contained in current - and that code
is NEVER locally modified. When we're satisfied that the code in a
timestamped branch is ready for production, we run an automated promote
script - and it runs a merge of the time-stamped branch into 'current'. The
staging machine is then automatically updated so that it has the latest
files from 'current', and then an automated build is run.
This was working great until the other day when we saw an unexpected
conflict merging the time-stamp branch into 'current'. Because we're never
modifying 'current' directly, we mistakenly assumed there would never be
conflicts. We obviously mis-understood the difference between update and
merge in this respect.
I've seen that in svn 1.5, there will be a way to resolve conflicts by
saying '(m)ine or (t)heirs' - which seems perfect, especially if we can
automatically alway choose 'theirs'. This would completely fix my current
problem... but, before then - is there anyway to do this with 1.4?
Received on 2008-01-16 16:39:23 CET