Ron Hunter-Duvar <ron.hunter-duvar_at_oracle.com> wrote on 04/21/2009
> Bob Archer wrote:
> The last commit to trunk was r1003. The branch was made at r7232
> on "svn log --stop-on-copy") and worked on up to r12212 (the current
> head revision), then frozen. I checked out a clean working copy of
> at r12212. From within the clean trunk working copy I did this
> svn merge -r 7232:12212 $REPOS/branch
> Don't you need to specify the branch folder???
> svn merge -r 7232:12212 $REPOS/branch/ThisBranchHere
> Usually you copy into a folder of branch when you do the branch. Don't
> What if you just try:
> svn merge $REPOS/branch
> if you are using svn 1.5 or newer it should figure out what revision
> range needs to be merged.
> That said... if you just want to move your branch as is to your trunk
> you can delete trunk and copy the branch to trunk.
> When I said $REPOS/branch that was just short hand for the full url,
> svn://<repository>/branches/<name-of-branch>. I know I got that part
> right (if I didn't, it would have made a much bigger mess, pulling
> in a bunch of old branches).
> I was working around the problem by deleting all the *.working and
> *.merge-left.r0 files and moving all the *.merge-right.r12212 files
> to their base names, and some other clean up (seems merge won't
> delete stuff that's in trunk but was deleted from branch). But I
> think your delete and copy is a much better solution. I'll do that
> instead. Thanks.
I don't like that solution - I feel like it mucks up the history of the
trunk. I'd do the merge with "--accept theirs-full" instead, which will do
what you did with the merge files - only automatically. The end result
will be the same, except for the history, so it's realy just a matter of
which you prefer.
To unsubscribe from this discussion, e-mail: [users-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org].
Received on 2009-04-22 00:02:46 CEST