On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 10:41:52AM -0800, Jeff Mott wrote: > On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 4:28 AM, Stefan Sperling <s...@elego.de> wrote: > > On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 09:09:14PM -0800, Jeff Mott wrote: > >> I just discovered that using --ignore-ancestry fixed the problem. This > >> caused SVN to update rather than replace my working copy. > > > > What is the ancestral relationship between the branches containing > > the vendor drops? I assume they are just freshly imported directories? > > > > Stefan > > > > Yes, they are freshly imported directories.
OK that makes sense. > I found in the SVN book where this behavior is explained > (http://svnbook.red-bean.com/en/1.5/svn.branchmerge.advanced.html#svn.branchmerge.advanced.ancestry). > Fourth paragraph under the "Noticing or Ignoring Ancestry" section. > > I only wish they mentioned all this in the Vendor Branches chapter. If you have time to tweak the text to make it more clear (e.g. by adding cross-references to other sections) and to send a diff, I can commit the diff. The book's source code is pretty easy to understand, it's written in an XML format called 'docbook'. See http://svnbook.org for details on how to contribute. If you really can't make a diff, it's fine if you suggest what should be changed where so I or others can do it. But a diff would be much nicer cause it saves those who commit the changes to the book a lot of time (even if you're only changing a single line), and also because you can easily send more tweaks in the future (once you're set up, editing the book and sending a diff is really easy, and the book will improve each time). Contributions to the book are surprisingly rare, hence very welcome. Thanks, Stefan
