On Wed, Dec 09, 2009 at 09:03:01AM -0500, Reed, Mark (TBS) wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 09, 2009 at 03:17:26, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> > ...
>
> Thanks for the reply. I resolved the issue by specifying the revisions
> to merge. I was under the impression that a merge between a branch and
> its parent would automatically start at the point where they diverge,
> but apparently not. (And this particular repo is old, so it doesn't even
> support --reintegrate).
So the repository is in 1.4.x format, and the server is at 1.4.x,
but the client is at 1.6.x?
> So I'm good for now. Still a little surprised by the behavior, but able
> to work around it. To answer your questions, however:
>
> > Why not use separate working copies for trunk and the branch.
>
> I just did it that way in the transcript since it made for an easier
> command sequence.
>
> > You now have a mixed-revision working copy. Merging into a
> > mixed-revision working copy is never a good idea.
>
> How can it be mixed? I just commited from it.
You committed from it without updating after the commit, so it's mixed.
See http://svnbook.red-bean.com/nightly/en/svn.basic.in-action.html#svn.basic.in-action.mixedrevs
> > Do the tree conflicts still happen if you run "svn update"
> > at this point?
>
> Sure. svn up is a no-op - "at revision 4865."
It's not a no-op. It bumps all directories in the working copy
to the new BASE revision (r4865). This can make a difference for tree
conflicts, even if the update didn't make any changes to files in
the working copy.
Stefan
------------------------------------------------------
http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=1065&dsMessageId=2428878
Please start new threads on the <users_at_subversion.apache.org> mailing list.
To subscribe to the new list, send an empty e-mail to <users-subscribe_at_subversion.apache.org>.
Received on 2009-12-09 15:56:31 CET