[cvsnt] Re: Force conflict

Oliver Giesen ogware at gmx.net
Tue Dec 28 09:24:41 GMT 2004

Community technical support mailing list was retired 2010 and replaced with a professional technical support team. For assistance please contact: Pre-sales Technical support via email to sales@march-hare.com.

Bo Berglund wrote:

> There is, however, a slight problem here:
> If a developer has a number of changes in his files that he has
> tested and is now ready to commit them he must first do a cvs update
> to make sure his files are revision wise at the top of the tree.

Personally I only perform that step when I actually get the "Up-to-date
check failed" message but then we're a really small team with strong
distribution of responsibilities and few overlaps and the possibility
of even more changes being committed while I resolve this situation is
rather minimal. I could see that this procedure is not feasible when
there is a constantly high potential for other people committing
changes to your files while you're working on them.

> It would be nice to have a possibility to undo a cvs update thus
> bringing back the file states to what they were in just before the
> update when they contained only the developer's own edits on top of
> the revision he started out with. It would not be a great tool, but it
> would make it possible for the developer to recreate his files and
> revision state so he can at least create a branch at that point and
> store his edits into that branch....
> Maybe there is just such a function available that makes use of the
> #-marked files that get created during updates???

That should be a relatively easy task for a WinCvs macro. Something
like "Undo merge"...
It would:
- scan the selection for files with the "Result of merge" comment,
- then locate the latest .#<filename>.<revision> instances for each of
those files (striking again from the list those files for which no
backup exists),
- update -Cr each of those files back to the revision identified in the
previous step (just to update the ./CVS/Entries* files),
- overwrite the files with the merge backups

This would make the revisions sticky but I don't think that should be a
problem as you couldn't simply commit them anyway. You would still be
able to diff them to HEAD and/or create a branch from that point. It
also has the added benefit of letting you update without reproducing
the unwanted merge.

Alternatively I could let the macro manipulate the revision in
./CVS/Entries directly without making it sticky but I'd rather like to
avoid that.

Do you think that would be useful?


----  ------------------
JID:  ogiesen at jabber.org
ICQ:  18777742	(http://wwp.icq.com/18777742)

More information about the cvsnt mailing list
Download the latest CVSNT, TortosieCVS, WinCVS etc. for Windows 8 etc.
@CVSNT on Twitter   CVSNT on Facebook