TortoiseSVN overrides command line svn proxy configuration?
It was quite surprising today when we were having problems with the proxy, and then we noticed that TortoiseSVN would override command line svn. Is that suppose to happen? After unchecking the proxy configuration on tortoisesvn, the command line started to work again, showing command line svn was actually using tortoise proxy configuration. regards Emerson
Applying multiple commits done to a branch to another branch
Hi We are moving from a single trunk to a layered approach, with a unstable (same as the old trunk), and a stable branch. The code should be promoted to the stable branch only when a certain story would be done (finished and tested). When creating the story, several commits might had been necessary to complete it, and in all of them would have the story code (eg:#3145) on the commit message. Now my question: what is the best way to apply just the changes that were part of a specific story, and still keep all the individual commit comments? At a first thought, I think we would have to first locate all the changes to svn that had that code on the commit message, and then re-apply them to the stable branch, just not sure how to do it. Any ideas? regards Emerson
Re: Applying multiple commits done to a branch to another branch
Hi Guys Thanks for the answers. First Andy, yes, we put more than the story code on the commits :) We are using svn 1.4.4 ont he server, so to be able to keep track of the ancestors logs we will probably need to upgrade. Still, I believe we need some tool to search the logs for that especific # code of the story. Correct me if I am wrong, but from there I would have to collect all the revision numbers, and apply them in a single merge manually? Is there any way to automate this? thanks emerson On 16 June 2010 22:40, Daniel Becroft wrote: > On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 4:20 AM, Bob Archer wrote: >> >>> You're describing a normal usage of merging. >>> http://svnbook.red-bean.com/nightly/en/svn.branchmerge.html >>> >>> You don't want to redo all those commit messages, you want the merge >>> to be aware of the history behind everything that's been done (which, >>> if you're using 1.5 or later, is taken care of), so that svn log can >>> trace back & all those messages fall right in line. >> >> Really... I didn't know this happened. If you look at the log of trunk where >> you have merged in from branch won't it only show the merge as a single rev >> with the message you made in the merge commit. How will you be able to trace >> the log back through the changes made in branch? > > It does, but not by default. You need to use the > '-g/--use-merge-history' switch. > > http://svnbook.red-bean.com/nightly/en/svn.branchmerge.advanced.html#svn.branchmerge.advanced.logblame > > Cheers, > Daniel B. >
Re: Applying multiple commits done to a branch to another branch
Hi I was told that I could use the following syntax to merge different revisions at once: svn merge [source svn location] -c 444 -c 469 -c 480 However, when I tried using this syntax I found out that all merges are done against the initial state of the current folder which resulted in conflicts, as in some cases the differents commits were related to the same bit of code. Is there anyway to have in one command line a behaviour that would take in account the previous revisions? thanks Emerson On 17 June 2010 14:53, emerson wrote: > On 17 June 2010 13:29, Andy Levy wrote: >> On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 05:38, emerson wrote: >>> Hi Guys >>> >>> Thanks for the answers. >>> First Andy, yes, we put more than the story code on the commits :) >>> We are using svn 1.4.4 ont he server, so to be able to keep track of >>> the ancestors logs we will probably need to upgrade. >> >> Note that the 1.4 series has not been supported for quite some time, >> and when 1.7 is released, 1.5 support will be dropped. You definitely >> ought to upgrade. >> > > We are going to move to the latest stable 1.6.11. > >>> Still, I believe we need some tool to search the logs for that >>> especific # code of the story. >>> Correct me if I am wrong, but from there I would have to collect all >>> the revision numbers, and apply them in a single merge manually? Is >>> there any way to automate this? >> >> If each story gets its own branch, then you don't have to worry about that. > > We might in the future go for a bigger isolation level like this, but > at this point we will work with two different branches, a unstable > (which would be our current trunk) and a stable, which will get > promoted a story at a time. > > We needed something like this: > > Ex: searchsvnapp http://[repo location root] #s1322 > > result: > revisions: 4233,4249,4313 > > This would then be copied and pasted in a merge command that would > allow to apply all the revisions at once. > > I know that tortoise can do that, how can that be done on the command > line? Or through some API maybe? > > BTW, Is there any way to use the merge command to apply several > revisions at once? > > Thanks > Emerson > >>> On 16 June 2010 22:40, Daniel Becroft wrote: >>>> On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 4:20 AM, Bob Archer wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> You're describing a normal usage of merging. >>>>>> http://svnbook.red-bean.com/nightly/en/svn.branchmerge.html >>>>>> >>>>>> You don't want to redo all those commit messages, you want the merge >>>>>> to be aware of the history behind everything that's been done (which, >>>>>> if you're using 1.5 or later, is taken care of), so that svn log can >>>>>> trace back & all those messages fall right in line. >>>>> >>>>> Really... I didn't know this happened. If you look at the log of trunk >>>>> where you have merged in from branch won't it only show the merge as a >>>>> single rev with the message you made in the merge commit. How will you be >>>>> able to trace the log back through the changes made in branch? >>>> >>>> It does, but not by default. You need to use the >>>> '-g/--use-merge-history' switch. >>>> >>>> http://svnbook.red-bean.com/nightly/en/svn.branchmerge.advanced.html#svn.branchmerge.advanced.logblame >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> Daniel B. >>>> >>> >> >
Slow merging of selected revisions
We started to use a two tiered baseline approach, with a development trunk and a stable branch. Everyday we are doing promotions of selected changes based on revisions, which might involve from 1 to >15 revisions in one go. Even dry-run sometimes takes more than 30 minutes to process one single file. We are using the "svn merge http://[repo] -c 333" command syntax. Our server is 1.4.4, and we are using 1.6.x clients. We are in the process of updating to the latest version on the server, is there anything I can try to improve the performance? thanks Emerson
Re: Slow merging of selected revisions
As a result of this new process, developers are doing a lot more local updates. How much of CPU this takes from the server? regards Emerson On 7 July 2010 12:10, emerson wrote: > We started to use a two tiered baseline approach, with a development > trunk and a stable branch. > Everyday we are doing promotions of selected changes based on > revisions, which might involve from 1 to >15 revisions in one go. > > Even dry-run sometimes takes more than 30 minutes to process one single file. > > We are using the "svn merge http://[repo] -c 333" command syntax. > > Our server is 1.4.4, and we are using 1.6.x clients. > We are in the process of updating to the latest version on the server, > is there anything I can try to improve the performance? > > thanks > Emerson >
question about "Tree conflict: local edit, incoming delete upon merge"
Hi I'm trying to apply a set of changes from our dev branch to our stable branch. If I try to apply all changes at once I get a 21 tree conflics, so I'm trying one by one, and committing at the end, so that I can be sure I'm promoting the whole feature. There is one specific revision that deletes a file. emer...@emerson-desktop:~/workspace/branches/stable$ svn merge http://subversion/svn/dotcom/trunk -c 80520 --- Merging r80520 into '.': C modules/com.yell.ucssearch/src/java/com/company/search/api/response/DoRetrieveNatAdFeed.java Summary of conflicts: Tree conflicts: 1 if I check the status of the file it shows: emer...@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?? Could someone clarify this please? Thanks Emerson
Re: question about "Tree conflict: local edit, incoming delete upon merge"
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 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 wrote: >> >>> >>> emerson wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> emer...@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 >>> >>> >>> >> >> > >
Re: question about "Tree conflict: local edit, incoming delete upon merge"
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 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 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 wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> emerson wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> emer...@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 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> >
Re: question about "Tree conflict: local edit, incoming delete upon merge"
On this other example I get a conflict when doing a dry-run, but when carrying out the real merge it doesn't complain: emer...@emerson-desktop:~/workspace/branches/stable$ svn merge --dry-run http://subversionserver/svn/cpndotcom/trunk -c 81067,81094,81095 --- Merging r81067 into '.': Aresources/software_packs/pt/extras Aresources/software_packs/pt/extras/postMerge.sh --- Merging r81094 into '.': Uresources/software_packs/pt/build.xml --- Merging r81095 into '.': C resources/software_packs/pt/extras Summary of conflicts: Tree conflicts: 1 emer...@emerson-desktop:~/workspace/branches/stable$ svn merge http://subversionserver/svn/cpndotcom/trunk -c 81067,81094,81095 --- Merging r81067 into '.': Aresources/software_packs/pt/extras Aresources/software_packs/pt/extras/postMerge.sh --- Merging r81094 into '.': Uresources/software_packs/pt/build.xml --- Merging r81095 into '.': Uresources/software_packs/pt/extras/postMerge.sh On 8 July 2010 14:21, emerson 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 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 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 wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> emerson wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> emer...@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 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >
Question about mergeinfo
We are using svn 1.6 for a few weeks. Since then we faced the problem of the mergeinfo changing in files different from those that people were actually committing. We found out that we should always commit from the same level to stop this to happen. All good. I presume that we should have svn:mergeinfo property only on the root of the branch we are merging too, correct? It happens that several sub-folders in the branch that weren't touched, contain mergeinfo property with revisions that ahve nothing to do with that folder. I had thought that some commits done from the root would change and clear up the mergeinfo of subfolder, but this doesn't seem to be the case. Could someone please clarify how this clearing of mergeinfo works? Another question: we do revision based merging, promoting stories/goals not necessarily in the same order they were committed in the trunk. Besides helping in tracing the changes in the branch the the original logs, is there any other utility in having the mergeinfo information? regards Emerson
Tree conflicts when merging multiple revisions
I'm trying to run a merge with different revisions. We use a two tier codebase approach with trunk and a stable branch and selectively cherry-pick what should be merged. After merging a few revisions, I have a "Summary of conflicts: Tree conflicts: 2" message. How can I find out which the revisions actually had the tree conflict? The tree conflict messages are also really vague, without telling exactly what the conflict is, which file or folder is missing or whichever reason caused the tree conflict. Is there any way to get the reason of the tree conflict? Regards Emerson
applying multiple commits done to a branch to another branch
Hi We are moving from a single trunk to a layered approach, with a unstable (same as the old trunk), and a stable branch. The code should be promoted to the stable branch only when a certain story would be done (finished and tested). When creating the story, several commits might had been necessary to complete it, and in all of them would have the story code (eg:#3145) on the commit message. Now my question: what is the best way to apply just the changes that were part of a specific story, and still keep all the individual commit comments? At a first thought, I think we would have to first locate all the changes to svn that had that code on the commit message, and then re-apply them to the stable branch, just not sure how to do it. Any ideas? regards Emerson
applying multiple commits done to a branch to another branch
Hi We are moving from a single trunk to a layered approach, with a unstable (same as the old trunk), and a stable branch. The code should be promoted to the stable branch only when a certain story would be done (finished and tested). When creating the story, several commits might had been necessary to complete it, and in all of them would have the story code (eg:#3145) on the commit message. Now my question: what is the best way to apply just the changes that were part of a specific story, and still keep all the individual commit comments? At a first thought, I think we would have to first locate all the changes to svn that had that code on the commit message, and then re-apply them to the stable branch, just not sure how to do it. Any ideas? regards Emerson
