RCS Keyword Conflicts During Merge (was RE: [cvsnt] Re: minorBugin update in Build 1927)

David Hauck davidh at netacquire.com
Tue Apr 26 23:10:28 BST 2005


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.


Hi Tony,

> Hi Tony,
>
> > David Hauck wrote:
> > > anyways. I've often wondered if CVS merge could be optimized
> > somehow in this
> > > regard to eliminate/ignore RCS keyword conflicts; they're a
> pain, in my
> > > mind, to deal with currently.
> > >
> > cvs does try to minimise this, and is reasonably successful a lot of the
> > time.  There are some keywords like $Log$, which simply can't be done
> > automatically though.
> >
> > If you're 3-way merging one of the files (the modified file from the
> > user) is going to have the keywords in whatever you do, so it's nearly
> > impossible to handle that.  A branch merge to a clean sandbox can avoid
> > a lot of conflists though.
>
> I only ever do branch merges (i.e., -j <tag> -j <tag> representing one
> branches changes merged onto an active sandbox representing
> another branch).
> Whenever a file being merged has changed in both branches I see the RCS
> keyword conflicts.

I wanted to report something that I just encountered with my latest branch
merge. I recently moved over to using -kk with the update merge command and
this (seemed) to work great. At least all the keyword conflicts disappeared
and I no longer had to manually correct these. *However*, I found out that
handling of binary files is less than optimal in this situation. In
particular the update merge command ends up performing non-binary operations
on binary files (line endings are converted) as a result and this messes up
subsequent commits of these files if they're marked as modified in the
merge.

I would have thought that the -kk option was orthogonal to repository files
tagged as binary (i.e., doesn't the binary setting take precedence, or,
alternatively, shouldn't the -kk option be meaningless for binary files)?
I'm using 2.0.58d (client/server) - perhaps this has been fixed in later
versions?

Regards,
-David

> -David
>
> > Tony
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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




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