RE: Branch/switch/merge question

> From: Edward Ned Harvey (svn4) [mailto:svn4_at_nedharvey.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2013 9:13 AM
> To: users_at_subversion.apache.org
> Subject: Branch/switch/merge question
>

> In particular, I branch (and switch) from /trunk to /branches/eharvey.  I
> then make a few commits.  I switch back to /trunk, and merge from the branch.
>  I commit to trunk.  (I'm always at a loss for comment, because I'm just
> committing things that have already been commented.  But that's a side note.)
>   I then switch back to /branches/eharvey, and merge from /trunk.

> So here's my question:  Even if I'm the only person who committed anything... 
> I was fully committed on /branches/eharvey, I then became fully committed
> on /trunk, and when I merge back into /branches/eharvey, suddenly I'm not
> fully committed.  My latest status (check for modifications) shows the child
> subfolder as "modified," and when I diff it, it's the svn:mergeinfo property
> that's different.  It shows that I merged /trunk into /branches/eharvey,
> even though there were no changes from trunk to merge in.

It's a feature. The repository HEAD revision changed, i.e. someone checked in somewhere else in the repository, so svn updates the svn:mergeinfo property anyway. Personally, I wish the merge and merge tools (especially mergeinfo) used the Last Changed Revision instead.

> So, most importantly, am I using svn branch/switch/merge in the way that it's intended to be used?
Yes.

> Should my usage pattern be different somehow?
No, but since you're the only one working on the trunk, you don't necessarily need to branch/merge. However, if you have a continuous integration server that's constantly building and deploying new commits from trunk, then working on the feature branch and only merging when your feature branch is stable is a good thing.
Received on 2013-11-26 15:31:48 CET