[cvsnt] Mergepoint issues on b2382

Tony Hoyle tony.hoyle at march-hare.local
Fri Jan 12 18:38:55 GMT 2007

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.

Andreas Krey wrote:
> It has become one by inserting the merge arrow. contains
> the changes made in 1.2 as well as the head, so it is effectively

But 1.2 does not contain the changes made in

> But it happens to yield the correct result. And that is not a

.. in this occasion, since you wanted to copy.

If in the merge A->B you had discarded some/most changes as being 
irrelevant, committed, then done some more work on branch B then the 
merge back must not use 1.2 since 1.2 is not the logical ancestor - in 
fact what you end up doing is merging in the wrong information (the 
differences between A and B after the merge, which are intentional and 
not in this case supposed to be merged back), and potentialy breaking A 
completely if you manage to miss the problem.

In fact this incorrect merge degrades the whole operation into a copy, 

Merge A->B
Merge differences between B and A into A

Is just an expensive copy operation.

I'm not sure such a problem is solvable easily, either.


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