Ron Hunter-Duvar <ron.hunter-duvar_at_oracle.com> wrote on 04/21/2009
06:12:53 PM:
>
>
> Mike Meyer wrote:
>
>
> Ron Hunter-Duvar <ron.hunter-duvar_at_oracle.com> wrote on 04/21/2009
> 05:51:06 PM:
>
> >
> >
> > Bob Archer wrote:
> > The last commit to trunk was r1003. The branch was made at r7232
> >
> > (based
> >
> > 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
> >
> > trunk
> >
> > at r12212. From within the clean trunk working copy I did this
> >
> > command:
> >
> > 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
> > you?
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > BOb
> >
> > 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.
>
> <mike
> Actually, compared to committing several thousand individual
> changes, with no record of where they came from other than the log
> message, a simple delete and copy with clear log messages tells me
> more. Keep in mind that this is an unusual case, in that there is no
> trunk history to muck up. The trunk hasn't been touched in years
> (before I came on the project and kind of by default took over
> control of the version control process), and is so far out of date
> with the current that there's no history of interest there.
>
> I don't have a '--accept-theirs-full' option listed either in the
> red book or in "svn help merge". I got a private suggestion to try
> the "--reintegrate" option, which I also don't have. I neglected to
> mention that we're still on svn 1.4, which may be why I don't have
> those options available.
I do believe you're right, but want to point out that the merge option
should leave a change history if you were using 1.5 or later, as opposed
to having "no record of where they came from". I say should, because -
well, your merge shouldn't have needed the --accept option to behave that
way in the first place, so it shouldn't be a complete surprise if you get
strange results from other operations.
<mike
------------------------------------------------------
http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=1065&dsMessageId=1860763
To unsubscribe from this discussion, e-mail: [users-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org].
Received on 2009-04-22 16:03:08 CEST