RE: Fwd: svn1.5 seems to fail simple merge-tracking scenario

> On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 9:22 AM, Trent
> Nelson<svn-users-list_at_trentnelson.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 09:14:00PM +0000, Trent Nelson wrote:
> >> On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 03:20:32PM -0500, Mark Phippard wrote:
> >> > On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 3:10 PM, Bob Archer
> <Bob.Archer_at_amsi.com> wrote:
> >> > >> I wrote the text that was quoted, and it is not as
> absolute as has
> >> > >> been made out.  You can still use the branch.  The blog
> you were
> >> > >
> >> > > But you can't reintegrate it, right? Which kind of makes it
> unuseable.
> >> >
> >> > Sure you can.  This works:
> >> >
> >> > $ svn co ^/branch1
> >> > $ svn ci -m "work on branch"
> >> > $ svn merge ^/trunk
> >> > $ svn ci -m "Catch up with trunk"
> >> >
> >> > On trunk WC
> >> > $ svn merge --reintegrate ^/branch1
> >> > $ svn ci -m "Commit all work from branch1"
> >> > Committed revision 100
> >> >
> >> > Back on branch1
> >> > $ svn merge --record-only -r100 ^/trunk
> >> > $ svn ci -m "Mark r100 as merged"
> >
> >    -r100 is semantically equivalent to -r0:100, right?
>
> No, it is a typo that I think would fail. It should be -c 100.

Eek. We've been using the --record-only -r0:100 pattern for the last few months. It seemed to work fine, initially. Only in the last week or two has it become apparent that the last 50+ re-integrations/syncs have almost all been subtlety borked. And in some cases, not so subtlety -- the epic-fail-upon-any-form-of-merge branches are what alerted us to the underlying issue that's been secretly haunting us since we clocked revision ~73 or so, in March-ish.

But, for now, I digress. I've just played around with a couple of re-integrations/syncs using -c 100 instead of -r0:100. This behaviour surprised me:

branches/foo>svn pg svn:mergeinfo . | grep trunk
trunk:2-115

branches/foo>svn merge --record-only -c 300 ^/trunk
branches/foo>svn pg svn:mergeinfo | grep trunk
trunk:300

I was expecting to see `trunk:2-115,300`, not `trunk:300`. The latter just doesn't seem right; or am I incorrectly expecting svn:mergeinfo to mirror the semantics of svnmerge-integrated/svnmerge-blocked?

        Trent.

------------------------------------------------------
http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=1065&dsMessageId=2361433

To unsubscribe from this discussion, e-mail: [users-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org].
Received on 2009-06-11 21:53:41 CEST