[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: merge issue
From: |
Larry Jones |
Subject: |
Re: merge issue |
Date: |
Fri, 25 Jan 2002 11:45:10 -0500 (EST) |
Schwenk, Jeanie writes:
>
> I received this from one of our engineers here (I added a few details for
> clarity). I think the merge behaved this way because of the order of the
> tags. Is that correct?
Yes and no.
> So I tried something different. I checked in my current, beautified
> version, so that my version and the branch were both beautified and both
> committed. Then I did this:
>
> cvs update -j HEAD -j systema_v1_2 EQC_RobotArm.java
>
> The results of this were bizarre. These files were merged. Where there
> were conflicts, the contents of systema_v1_2 were taken only. No conflict
> file was created. ViewCVS's diff clearly showed the conflicts ... I know
> they are there.
That's not bizzarre, that's exactly what [s]he asked for. That
particular update command says, "Please take all of the changes between
version HEAD and version systema_v1_2 and apply them to the current
version in my working directory". Since the current version *was* HEAD,
there aren't any local changes that need to be merged and thus no chance
of conflicts; it effectively replaces the current version in toto with
version systema_v1_2.
The original update with just one -j option is the correct way to merge.
I would presume that the extended conflicts are due to subtle
differences in the "beautification", which is why doing such things is
generally inadvisable when branches are, or may be, involved.
-Larry Jones
Talk about someone easy to exploit! -- Calvin
- merge issue, Schwenk, Jeanie, 2002/01/24
- Re: merge issue,
Larry Jones <=
- Re: merge issue, Kaz Kylheku, 2002/01/25
- RE: merge issue, Schwenk, Jeanie, 2002/01/28
- RE: merge issue, Schwenk, Jeanie, 2002/01/28
- RE: merge issue, Schwenk, Jeanie, 2002/01/29
- RE: merge issue, Schwenk, Jeanie, 2002/01/30