RCS Keyword Conflicts During Merge (was RE: [cvsnt] Re: minor Bug inupdate in Build 1927)
matthew_schuckmann at amat.com
Wed Apr 6 18:08:35 BST 2005
It that they way to ignore keywords when doing diffs and merges was to use
the -kk option to prevent keywords from being expanded.
It's worked in all cases for me so far.
"David Hauck" <davidh at netacquire.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.27.1112806781.460.cvsnt at cvsnt.org...
> What do others normally do in these circumstances (i.e., conflicts that
> occur in RCS keywords)? Resolving these conflicts really doesn't do much
> since, in operation, the commit of the resulting resolution always results
> in a new "value" for the keyword (depending on keyword expansion flags)
> anyways. I've often wondered if CVS merge could be optimized somehow in
> regard to eliminate/ignore RCS keyword conflicts; they're a pain, in my
> mind, to deal with currently.
> I'm interested in hearing how others manage this issue.
> > On Tue, 5 Apr 2005 18:42:09 +0200, Richard Wirth
> > <r.wirth at wirthware.de> wrote:
> > >File contents:
> > >
> > ><<<<<<< Dmakefile
> > >;;; $Header: /home/cvs/repo1/Dmakefile,v 1.11 2003/10/16
> > 14:28:07 me Exp $
> > >=======
> > >;;; $Header: /home/cvs/repo1/Dmakefile,v 1.14 2005/04/05
> > 13:01:57 other Exp $
> > >>>>>>>> 1.14
> > >
> > >
> > >This is the only conflict! So why is this a conflict at all??
> > Hmm, if there *is* a modification in the same line on the two
> > revisions then this is per definition a conflict. CVS can hardly
> > decide that the conflict is too small to bother with, can it?
> > /Bo
> > (Bo Berglund, developer in Sweden)
> > _______________________________________________
> > cvsnt mailing list
> > cvsnt at cvsnt.org
> > http://www.cvsnt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cvsnt
More information about the cvsnt