Can I tell to svn that it totally forget revisions < 3000 ? Those are
very old and we could just get rid of them it there was a chance that
it solved the issue, it is a pity we need to deal with explicit
revisions all the time, reflective merges...
I don't know, perhaps around r2909 people did som
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 4:25 PM, Bob Archer wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 5:11 PM, Tyler Roscoe wrote:
>>
>> > On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 03:17:54PM +0100, Xavier Noria wrote:
>> >> Even if I try to fix it by hand with
>> >>
>> >>
On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 5:11 PM, Tyler Roscoe wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 03:17:54PM +0100, Xavier Noria wrote:
>> Even if I try to fix it by hand with
>>
>> svn merge -r2:2909 ^/trunk --record-only
>>
>> a subsequent merge still tries to get 2 thr
Even if I try to fix it by hand with
svn merge -r2:2909 ^/trunk --record-only
a subsequent merge still tries to get 2 through 2909. Moreover
svn propget svn:mergeinfo .
returns nothing.
Another fact is that svn log in the branch contains everything down to r1.
Is that normal? Could it
On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 4:51 PM, Tyler Roscoe wrote:
> You should look at your branch's ancestry to make sure those revisions
> are not needed. If they're not, you can use a --record-only merge to
> make the branch think it has those revisions. Subsequent merges from
> trunk should then skip over
I am using 1.6 and was told that nowadays explicit revision numbers
are not needed for branching merging in the most common use case at
least.
That is, after you create branch b from trunk, you work on b,
occasionally you sync with trunk this way:
cd b
svn merge ^/trunk .
and when you ar
