Thanks, Mark!
On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 8:29 AM, Cooke, Mark <mark.cooke_at_siemens.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 4:05 AM, Stefan Sperling <stsp_at_elego.de> wrote:
> >
> > > > On Wed, Dec 07, 2011 at 04:23:09PM -0700, Randall
> > > > Reynolds wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > I created a trunk and branch A from the trunk. Then,
> > > > I created a file in the trunk. Then, I merged from
> > > > the trunk to the branch using TortoiseSVN's merge two
> > > > branches option. The merge encountered a tree conflict
> > > > on the file. Selecting edit tree conflict says:
> > > > The last merge operation tried to delete/move/rename
> > > > the file 'file'
> > > > but the file was deleted, moved, or renamed locally.
> > > >
> > > > This message suggests that a merge operation tried to
> > > > delete/move/rename a file, and does not suggest that
> > > > the merge operation tried to add the file.
> > > >
> > > > Why?
> > >
> > > Hard to say. It depends entirely on the parameters you
> > > passed to the 2-URL merge.
> > >
> > > With the 'merge 2 branches' option, if you don't understand
> > > 100% what you're doing it is very easy to make mistakes
> > > which cause spurious conflicts.
> > >
> > > See http://subversion.apache.org/docs/svn-merge.txt for
> > > a short conceptual description of what the various merge
> > > options are doing (this is the output of 'svn help merge'
> > > in Subversion 1.7). The order of syntax types listed in
> > > that text matches the order in which tortoisesvn presents
> > > its merge options.
> > >
> > > > What should I do to make the branch match the trunk,
> > > > in this case? How can I prevent the tree conflict
> > > > from showing up in the future for this file?
> > >
> > > To merge from the trunk to the branch try using the
> > > first ("Merge a range of revisions") of the 3
> > > options which tortoisesvn presents. That should do
> > > the right thing.
> > >
> > > To merge the other way (branch back into trunk), use
> > > the 'reintegrate' option.
> > >
> > > The 'merge 2 branches' option is only necessary for more
> > > complex cases.
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Randall Reynolds [mailto:randallmreynolds_at_gmail.com]
> > Sent: 08 December 2011 15:19
> > To: Randall Reynolds; users_at_subversion.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: Question
> >
> > Stefan,
> >
> > I did not understand the three merge options and clearly
> > chose the wrong option. After reading your response and
> > reading about the merge options, I now understand this. Thank you.
> >
> > I changed my workflow to use the first option and merged the
> > range <#>-HEAD, where <#> is the last trunk revision when I
> > merged the trunk into the branch.
> >
> > As a follow-up question, how can I make absolutely sure the
> > merge worked? When I try to merge the same revision range a
> > second time, the message log is empty (indicating nothing is
> > happening, which is good), and I tried diffing the trunk with
> > the branch and they *look* synchronized. I also noticed
> > there is a fourth action icon in the trunk log that looks
> > like a merge icon. Aside from manually keeping track of the
> > ranges I am merging, is there a better way to know which
> > revision range to merge next time? Ex. using the icons in
> > the tortoise log? Ex. Should I leave the revision range
> > blank in the future?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Randall
>
> Can I suggest you read the tortoiseSVN manual pages on merging, they
> provide a lot of good information...
>
> http://tortoisesvn.net/docs/release/TortoiseSVN_en/tsvn-dug-merge.html
>
> Recent versions of subversion (and hence Tortoise) do "merge tracking" for
> you so long as you keep your life simple and always merge from the same
> folder (don't mess around merging sub folders or it can make life
> complicated). So if you leave the revision range field blank, tortoise
> fills it in for you.
>
> ~ mark c
>
Received on 2011-12-08 16:36:56 CET