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.
Concerning 2-way merges I am not talking about such. Mu merges are 1-way only, first from Trunk to Branch and then later another 1-way from Branch to Trunk. The sequence is: - Branch off trunk at say rev 1.8 - Make changes on branch to arrive at 1.8.2.9 - Also change trunk to get 1.11 - Now merge HEAD into branch and resolve conflicts (1-way) - Commit to get 1.8.2.10 - Now there is a mergepoint set on 1.8.2.10 pointing back to 1.11 - Next try the merge from branch to head (also 1-way) and get the conflicts I always thought that the mergepoints recorded pairs of revisions that were already merged such that the receiving end had all the changes from the branchpoint included. In my case above after the first merge the branch would contain all of the head changes in addition to the branch changes and this is noted by the mergepoint. Now, in the second (1-way) merge CVSNT should have noted that 1.8.2.10 (tip of branch) already contained all of the head changes from the original branch point to the HEAD revision 1.11 since the mergepoints would tell it so. Consequently there is no need to get any data from HEAD, just copy over the contents of branch in the merge process. But what happens is that it announces conflicts where there are same location changes even though the valid such conflicts were already solved in the first merge/commit. So why are the mergepoints not used? (Sorry about the top-posting, I am doing this from work where newsreaders do not work and Outlook is not able to format my reply properly...) Best regards, Bo Berglund -----Original Message----- From: cvsnt-bounces at cvsnt.org [mailto:cvsnt-bounces at cvsnt.org] On Behalf Of Arthur Barrett Sent: den 27 maj 2008 02:02 To: cvsnt at cvsnt.org cvsnt downloads at march-hare.com @CVSNT on Twitter CVSNT on Facebook Subject: Re: [cvsnt] Merging problems, getting strange conflicts.... Bo, > Now my TCPIP branch is working fine and I need to move it to TRUNK. In > preparation for this I merged HEAD into the branch and solved the > conflicts (because HEAD had changed a lot less than Branch over the > months). I thought that by doing this the final merge from branch to > trunk would be almost automatic. There was a really long thread on this ages ago. I think Gerhard was involved in a lot of it and may even have written something up afterwards in the wiki. The short summary is that CVSNT cannot do bidirectional merging. I think after that discussion Tony may have made some changes to the merge code to support a single suggestion that was made - if I'm remembering correctly then that'll be in 2.5.04 only and I think your production system is 2.5.03 - but I'm not sure it'd cover this case. The recommended approach is to merge branch to trunk with no merge from trunk to branch (you did this as a 'prep' step which is simply unnecessary since the trunk is not locked or changed until you actually commit the merge. Alternativly there is the 'copy branch to trunk' or 'make trunk equivalent to branch' method. Regards, Arthur _______________________________________________ cvsnt mailing list cvsnt at cvsnt.org cvsnt downloads at march-hare.com @CVSNT on Twitter CVSNT on Facebook http://www.cvsnt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cvsnt https://www.march-hare.com/cvspro/en.asp#downcvs