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 email@example.com.
On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 18:38:55 +0000, Tony Hoyle wrote: > Andreas Krey wrote: > > It has become one by inserting the merge arrow. 126.96.36.199 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 188.8.131.52. Of course not. Merge arrows have a direction, just like all other lines in the revision graph. > > But it happens to yield the correct result. And that is not a > > .. in this occasion, since you wanted to copy. It's only a copy if you do the backmerge before anything else happened on the trunk. Also, when I copy outside cvs the corresponding merge arrow is missing. > 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 True. But when you don't actually bring in everything from 1.2 then there should not be a merge arrow for that action in the first place. You are equally at a loss if you use that merge arrow for selecting the common ancestor for the next merge *into* the branch; you will still miss the stuff that you've manually thrown out at the first merge. > I'm not sure such a problem is solvable easily, either. If you don't have the parts you want to bring over into another branch as separately committed changes then the version control can't help you anymore, obviously. Andreas -- np: 4'33