Thanks, Mark! On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 8:29 AM, Cooke, Mark <mark.co...@siemens.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 4:05 AM, Stefan Sperling <s...@elego.de> wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 07, 2011 at 04:23:09PM -0700, Randall > > > > Reynolds wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > I created a trunk and branch A from the trunk. Then, > > > > I created a file in the trunk. Then, I merged from > > > > the trunk to the branch using TortoiseSVN's merge two > > > > branches option. The merge encountered a tree conflict > > > > on the file. Selecting edit tree conflict says: > > > > The last merge operation tried to delete/move/rename > > > > the file 'file' > > > > but the file was deleted, moved, or renamed locally. > > > > > > > > This message suggests that a merge operation tried to > > > > delete/move/rename a file, and does not suggest that > > > > the merge operation tried to add the file. > > > > > > > > Why? > > > > > > Hard to say. It depends entirely on the parameters you > > > passed to the 2-URL merge. > > > > > > With the 'merge 2 branches' option, if you don't understand > > > 100% what you're doing it is very easy to make mistakes > > > which cause spurious conflicts. > > > > > > See http://subversion.apache.org/docs/svn-merge.txt for > > > a short conceptual description of what the various merge > > > options are doing (this is the output of 'svn help merge' > > > in Subversion 1.7). The order of syntax types listed in > > > that text matches the order in which tortoisesvn presents > > > its merge options. > > > > > > > What should I do to make the branch match the trunk, > > > > in this case? How can I prevent the tree conflict > > > > from showing up in the future for this file? > > > > > > To merge from the trunk to the branch try using the > > > first ("Merge a range of revisions") of the 3 > > > options which tortoisesvn presents. That should do > > > the right thing. > > > > > > To merge the other way (branch back into trunk), use > > > the 'reintegrate' option. > > > > > > The 'merge 2 branches' option is only necessary for more > > > complex cases. > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Randall Reynolds [mailto:randallmreyno...@gmail.com] > > Sent: 08 December 2011 15:19 > > To: Randall Reynolds; users@subversion.apache.org > > Subject: Re: Question > > > > Stefan, > > > > I did not understand the three merge options and clearly > > chose the wrong option. After reading your response and > > reading about the merge options, I now understand this. Thank you. > > > > I changed my workflow to use the first option and merged the > > range <#>-HEAD, where <#> is the last trunk revision when I > > merged the trunk into the branch. > > > > As a follow-up question, how can I make absolutely sure the > > merge worked? When I try to merge the same revision range a > > second time, the message log is empty (indicating nothing is > > happening, which is good), and I tried diffing the trunk with > > the branch and they *look* synchronized. I also noticed > > there is a fourth action icon in the trunk log that looks > > like a merge icon. Aside from manually keeping track of the > > ranges I am merging, is there a better way to know which > > revision range to merge next time? Ex. using the icons in > > the tortoise log? Ex. Should I leave the revision range > > blank in the future? > > > > Thanks, > > > > Randall > > Can I suggest you read the tortoiseSVN manual pages on merging, they > provide a lot of good information... > > http://tortoisesvn.net/docs/release/TortoiseSVN_en/tsvn-dug-merge.html > > Recent versions of subversion (and hence Tortoise) do "merge tracking" for > you so long as you keep your life simple and always merge from the same > folder (don't mess around merging sub folders or it can make life > complicated). So if you leave the revision range field blank, tortoise > fills it in for you. > > ~ mark c >
