svn merge appears to work with revision numbers but not symbolically with
tags. Is this expected?
The merge happens twice if I use tags:
svn merge tag1 tag2 --non-interactive
But when I find the revisions with svn info
svn info tag1
Last Changed Rev: 457
svn info tag2
Last Changed Rev: 467
and then do the merge based on these revision numbers
svn merge -r 457:467 trunk --non-interactive
the merge happens correctly
--------------------------------------------------
From: "Bob Archer" <bob.arc...@amsi.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2011 1:38 PM
To: "Daniel Walter" <d2wal...@hotmail.com>; <users@subversion.apache.org>
Subject: RE: duplicate merge conflict
--------------------------------------------------
From: "Bob Archer" <bob.arc...@amsi.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2011 9:33 AM
To: "Daniel Walter" <d2wal...@hotmail.com>;
<users@subversion.apache.org>
Subject: RE: duplicate merge conflict
>> When I merge changes in SVN, the merges work well except for the
>> conflicts. For some reason, the merges are frequently (but not
>> always done twice). As an example:
>> <<<<<<< .working
>> <<<<<<< .working
>> const int SERIALIZE_FIELDS_DATA_LENGTH = 83;
>> =======
>> const int SERIALIZE_FIELDS_DATA_LENGTH = 91;
>> >>>>>>> .merge-right.r462
>> =======
>> const int SERIALIZE_FIELDS_DATA_LENGTH = 91;
>> >>>>>>> .merge-right.r461
>> It appears that I am merging the changes between versions 442
and
>> 462 into the current working copy so I don't understand where
461
>> is coming from.
>>
>> This is happening both with Tortoise SVN (using Merge two
different
>> trees) or from the command line with:
>>
>> svn merge tree1 tree2 --non-interactive
>
> Can you revert your merge and verify that your working copy
didn't already
> have those r461 merge indicators in it. I know here people have
checked in
> files that had unresolved conflict markers in them.
>
I reverted to the original source and verified it. It had no
conflicts.
Then I did the merge again. The same thing happened and I ended up
with
duplicate conflicts again.
Is it possible you are merging in a range of non-contiguous revision? I
believe that does a merge of each range separately.
BOb
