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 firstname.lastname@example.org.
Now that you mention it I was surprised when working on a previous project that some of my commits failed only on the comments. I guess doing an update first and then a commit might reduce the potential to conflict on the $Log$ comments (though I can see that won't work between a branch and the trunk since when you update you will be updating against the branch). So if I use the $Log$ comments I will end up with a merge conflict for every file that has changed both in the branch and the trunk? Sounds like I won't be using $Log$. Too bad because I did find it useful to see the comments in the file itself. Nick "Gerhard Fiedler" <lists at connectionbrazil.com> wrote in message news:rojg0l35d3ed$.dlg at connectionbrazil.com... > Nick Duane wrote: > >>> Avoid $Log$ if you're doing merging - it doesn't merge well at all, >>> since >>> all the log comments create differences. > >> Hmmm. I find the $Log:$ comments very useful and would hate to loose >> that >> feature. I don't understand what you mean by them creating differences. > > See here for some info http://www.cvsnt.org/manual/html/Log-keyword.html > > Even if everything else in the file merges fine, the pack of log lines may > create an unnecessary conflict that has to be fixed manually. Which then > links back to the issue with the log entries in the file being "fixed" > manually, without updating their original data in the cvsnt commit > comments. > > Gerhard