[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: Need to run an SVN Update which preserves local changes

From: Daniel Becroft <djcbecroft_at_gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 09:02:17 +1000

On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 2:50 AM, Brian Erickson
<erickson_at_bauercontrols.com>wrote:

> AFAIK, there is no way to do an svn update that does not do a merge.
> There is a way to automatically handle conflicting changes( as was
> previously posted) but that's not what you're asking about.

Actually, in a way, there is. While 'svn update' will still attempt to do
the merge, there is a method of preventing it from actually performing the
merge (successfully). It uses the '--diff3-cmd' switch to pass a custom
merge program, which will always fail, thereby always resulting in a
conflict.

e.g. svn update --diff3-cmd fail.bat .

It is then up to the developer(s) to resolve the conflicts before they can
commit.

We were considering using this for our SVN migration from a
'lock-modify-unlock' version control.

No local changes will be lost. We've been using Subversion for about a
> year now and in my experience (limited though it may be) doing the merge
> is a good thing. We were initially worried that the merge was going to
> create a lot of problems. That hasn't happened.
>
> You will want to understand conflict resolution. TortoiseSVN has a very
> nice conflict editor. It's here that a user can ask for local changes
> to be forgotten in favor of another set of changes.
>
> You will also want to understand the needs-lock property (for binary
> files).
>
> The book is very helpful. If you haven't read it, you should. It
> answered most of my questions.
>
> Brian
>

Cheers,
Daniel B.

> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Alexander Maw [mailto:icouldntgetagoodname_at_gmail.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2009 8:14 AM
> > To: users_at_subversion.tigris.org
> > Subject: RE: Need to run an SVN Update which preserves local changes
> >
> > The team doesn't want their stuff to be merged or submitted
> > by the update. When they are working on a file, they want it
> > to be left alone by the update, as right now it will
> > overwrite their local changes and their work will be lost.
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------
> > http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=1065&
> dsMessageId=2376570<http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=1065&%0AdsMessageId=2376570>
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this discussion, e-mail:
> > [users-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org].
> >
>
> ------------------------------------------------------
>
> http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=1065&dsMessageId=2376655
>
> To unsubscribe from this discussion, e-mail: [
> users-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org].
>

------------------------------------------------------
http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=1065&dsMessageId=2376760

To unsubscribe from this discussion, e-mail: [users-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org].
Received on 2009-07-30 01:03:16 CEST

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Users mailing list.

This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.