On this other example I get a conflict when doing a dry-run, but when
carrying out the real merge it doesn't complain:
emerson_at_emerson-desktop:~/workspace/branches/stable$ svn merge
--dry-run http://subversionserver/svn/cpndotcom/trunk -c
81067,81094,81095
--- Merging r81067 into '.':
A resources/software_packs/pt/extras
A resources/software_packs/pt/extras/postMerge.sh
--- Merging r81094 into '.':
U resources/software_packs/pt/build.xml
--- Merging r81095 into '.':
C resources/software_packs/pt/extras
Summary of conflicts:
Tree conflicts: 1
emerson_at_emerson-desktop:~/workspace/branches/stable$ svn merge
http://subversionserver/svn/cpndotcom/trunk -c 81067,81094,81095
--- Merging r81067 into '.':
A resources/software_packs/pt/extras
A resources/software_packs/pt/extras/postMerge.sh
--- Merging r81094 into '.':
U resources/software_packs/pt/build.xml
--- Merging r81095 into '.':
U resources/software_packs/pt/extras/postMerge.sh
On 8 July 2010 14:21, emerson <echofloripa.yell_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> On the release notes it also say:
> http://subversion.apache.org/docs/release-notes/1.6.html
>
> "Situations now flagged as conflicts include deletions of locally modified file"
>
> Does it mean I won't be able to apply several revisions through merge
> and then commit them at once, in the following case?
>
> trunk revision 4 changed file A
> trunk revision 5 deleted the same file A
>
> note: nothing else changed file A
>
> Then in my local stable copy of the stable branch I apply revision 4,
> then apply revision 5, and try to commit all together.
>
> Based on the phrase above, that isn't allowed?
>
> thanks for the help
> Emerson
>
>
>
> On 8 July 2010 13:41, emerson <echofloripa.yell_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>> Ops, missed the reply-all.
>>
>> That specific file hasn't changed since the branch was created, still
>> I got the tree conflict when it was deleted in svn.
>>
>> And for other files that I get tree conflict, they had been added and
>> changed in previous revisions, but all of them had been merged
>> locally.
>>
>> So... we are using 1.6 client and 1.4.4 server. Would
>> that be the reason of these type of conflicts?
>>
>> On 8 July 2010 12:54, Olivier Sannier <obones_at_free.fr> wrote:
>>> Between the time you created the branch and the time you merge it, the trunk
>>> has evolved and the file has been modified.
>>> Use the log to see that.
>>>
>>> Regards
>>> Olivier
>>>
>>> PS: Please reply to the list as well.
>>>
>>> emerson wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Olivier
>>>>
>>>> That is the thing, there is no changes done in that specific file!
>>>>
>>>> I just did:
>>>> - revert that file
>>>> - update from svn, nothing to update
>>>> - merge that revision
>>>> - got conflict
>>>>
>>>> One detail I left out: we are using 1.6 client and 1.4.4 server. Would
>>>> that be the reason of these type of conflicts?
>>>>
>>>> Regards
>>>> Emerson
>>>> On 8 July 2010 12:34, Olivier Sannier<obones_at_free.fr> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> emerson wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> emerson_at_emerson-desktop:~/workspace/branches/stable$ svn status
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> modules/com.company.search/src/java/com/company/search/api/response/DoRetrieveNatAdFeed.java
>>>>>> C
>>>>>>
>>>>>> modules/com.company.search/src/java/com/company/search/api/response/DoRetrieveNatAdFeed.java
>>>>>> > local edit, incoming delete upon merge
>>>>>>
>>>>>> why is that? This is a simple delete , why does it show as a conflict?
>>>>>> the file hasn't changed by any other revision that is part of the
>>>>>> merge. Shouldn't it just remove the file locally or mark it for
>>>>>> deletion? Can't I apply several revisions to commit afterwards
>>>>>> together if one of them contains a deletion??
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The message says it all: You have a local (ie in trunk) modification
>>>>> while
>>>>> the merge tries to delete that modified files.
>>>>> For you not to loose changes without knowing about it, SVN triggers a
>>>>> tree
>>>>> conflict. Only you, human, can decide what to do between keeping the file
>>>>> with the changes made in trunk, or accept the deletion that comes from
>>>>> the
>>>>> merge of the branch
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
Received on 2010-07-08 18:20:07 CEST