[cvsnt] Merging problems, getting strange conflicts....

Tony Hoyle tony.hoyle at march-hare.com
Tue May 27 23:36:28 BST 2008

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.

Bo Berglund wrote:
> Now, in the second (1-way) merge CVSNT should have noted that
> (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.

Support for bidirectional merges varies between versions - it was 
removed a while back after a couple of people reported loss of data due 
to it, then after some discussion on the list put back as an option 
(just had a look and it's not in the 2.5.04 tree.. might be in the 
2.5.03 drops).  Evs has it, but that's a different mechanism.

> So why are the mergepoints not used?

The other case is if cvsnt detects *any* 'difficult' cases it'll fall 
back to branchpoint merges rather than risk losing stuff - these are 
mostly things like branches with no revisions (where the mergepoint is 
in the parent branch but finding it can be tricky).


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