You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@subversion.apache.org by Paul Hammant <pa...@hammant.org> on 2009/09/11 15:37:23 UTC
svn merge --accept HUH ?
I'm a seven year user of Svn, and new to this list, greetings folks.
Before filing a bug, I'm to check here with y'all. Here's what I'm
trying to do ...
cd <my-trunk-dir>
svn up
svn merge --accept theirs-full <url-of-branch-to-merge-in> .
The last list, despite the doco, offers merge conflicts for me to
arbitrate over. We have kdiff3 linked in, but I suspect that the same
would be true for the command line arbitration too. I expected to not
be bothered by such issues given I specified "--accept theirs-full".
It looks like (undocumented) that --accept=theirs-full is also
acceptable for svn. Mis-spell any of those chars and svn will barf
with un-recognised params.
We're using Svn 1.6.3 on server and client. Day to day commits are
working well, and we've merged before but without the --accept option.
Have I got the syntax wrong? Or is this feature not working when it
should be (for merge as opposed to resolve).
Thoughts?
Regards,
- Paul
------------------------------------------------------
http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=1065&dsMessageId=2393636
To unsubscribe from this discussion, e-mail: [users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org].
Re: svn merge --accept HUH ?
Posted by Stefan Sperling <st...@elego.de>.
On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 02:02:05PM -0500, Paul Hammant wrote:
> Michael,
>
> What I'm reporting is that use of --diff3-cmd cancels any use of --
> accept.
> In this thread I'm not so much worried about our still breaking merge.
>
> I would wish that --diff3-cmd is ignored for cases where people use --
> accept, and not silently do something other than what you want. I'm
> going to raise a Svn issue around that specifically :)
Yeah, please file an issue, this sounds like a bug.
Stefan
------------------------------------------------------
http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=1065&dsMessageId=2396175
To unsubscribe from this discussion, e-mail: [users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org].
Re: svn merge --accept HUH ?
Posted by Paul Hammant <pa...@hammant.org>.
Michael,
What I'm reporting is that use of --diff3-cmd cancels any use of --
accept.
In this thread I'm not so much worried about our still breaking merge.
I would wish that --diff3-cmd is ignored for cases where people use --
accept, and not silently do something other than what you want. I'm
going to raise a Svn issue around that specifically :)
Regards,
- Paul
On Sep 17, 2009, at 1:29 PM, Michael Diers wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: RIPEMD160
>
> Paul Hammant wrote:
>> OK, found it ..
>>
>> .. for --accept to be processed in any way whatsoever, /etc/
>> subversion/
>> config can't contain any entries for diff3
>>
>> One presumes the same would be true on if you specified --diff3-cmd
>> on
>> the command line (which we were not).
>
> Still won't work in the general case, like in the presence of a tree
> conflict on directory hierarchy.
>
> Currently, --accept can only deal with what's already in the working
> copy. "Their" changes don't make it into the working copy in the
> case of
> tree-conflicted directories.
>
> I think 1.6.5 (or was it 1.6.6) has a patch that tells the user so.
>
> If you want to resolve the conflict as "theirs-full", you need to
> somehow copy that data into your working copy.
>
>> On Sep 11, 2009, at 10:37 AM, Paul Hammant wrote:
>>
>>> I'm a seven year user of Svn, and new to this list, greetings folks.
>>>
>>> Before filing a bug, I'm to check here with y'all. Here's what I'm
>>> trying to do ...
>>>
>>> cd <my-trunk-dir>
>>> svn up
>>>
>>> svn merge --accept theirs-full <url-of-branch-to-merge-in> .
>>>
>>>
>>> The last list, despite the doco, offers merge conflicts for me to
>>> arbitrate over. We have kdiff3 linked in, but I suspect that the
>>> same
>>> would be true for the command line arbitration too. I expected to
>>> not
>>> be bothered by such issues given I specified "--accept theirs-full".
>>>
>>> It looks like (undocumented) that --accept=theirs-full is also
>>> acceptable for svn. Mis-spell any of those chars and svn will barf
>>> with un-recognised params.
>>>
>>> We're using Svn 1.6.3 on server and client. Day to day commits are
>>> working well, and we've merged before but without the --accept
>>> option.
>>>
>>> Have I got the syntax wrong? Or is this feature not working when it
>>> should be (for merge as opposed to resolve).
>>>
>>> Thoughts?
>
> - --
> Michael Diers, elego Software Solutions GmbH, http://www.elego.de
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Cygwin)
>
> iEYEAREDAAYFAkqygAkACgkQcEKlWnqVgz07zgCfUk8FxAZ3kzutFcVJDy7JCQTd
> Uc8An3nfw2gAehHogqhLq1TECsrG0qGK
> =Zr5m
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
------------------------------------------------------
http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=1065&dsMessageId=2396153
To unsubscribe from this discussion, e-mail: [users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org].
Re: svn merge --accept HUH ?
Posted by Michael Diers <md...@elego.de>.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: RIPEMD160
Paul Hammant wrote:
> OK, found it ..
>
> .. for --accept to be processed in any way whatsoever, /etc/subversion/
> config can't contain any entries for diff3
>
> One presumes the same would be true on if you specified --diff3-cmd on
> the command line (which we were not).
Still won't work in the general case, like in the presence of a tree
conflict on directory hierarchy.
Currently, --accept can only deal with what's already in the working
copy. "Their" changes don't make it into the working copy in the case of
tree-conflicted directories.
I think 1.6.5 (or was it 1.6.6) has a patch that tells the user so.
If you want to resolve the conflict as "theirs-full", you need to
somehow copy that data into your working copy.
> On Sep 11, 2009, at 10:37 AM, Paul Hammant wrote:
>
>> I'm a seven year user of Svn, and new to this list, greetings folks.
>>
>> Before filing a bug, I'm to check here with y'all. Here's what I'm
>> trying to do ...
>>
>> cd <my-trunk-dir>
>> svn up
>>
>> svn merge --accept theirs-full <url-of-branch-to-merge-in> .
>>
>>
>> The last list, despite the doco, offers merge conflicts for me to
>> arbitrate over. We have kdiff3 linked in, but I suspect that the same
>> would be true for the command line arbitration too. I expected to not
>> be bothered by such issues given I specified "--accept theirs-full".
>>
>> It looks like (undocumented) that --accept=theirs-full is also
>> acceptable for svn. Mis-spell any of those chars and svn will barf
>> with un-recognised params.
>>
>> We're using Svn 1.6.3 on server and client. Day to day commits are
>> working well, and we've merged before but without the --accept option.
>>
>> Have I got the syntax wrong? Or is this feature not working when it
>> should be (for merge as opposed to resolve).
>>
>> Thoughts?
- --
Michael Diers, elego Software Solutions GmbH, http://www.elego.de
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Cygwin)
iEYEAREDAAYFAkqygAkACgkQcEKlWnqVgz07zgCfUk8FxAZ3kzutFcVJDy7JCQTd
Uc8An3nfw2gAehHogqhLq1TECsrG0qGK
=Zr5m
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
------------------------------------------------------
http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=1065&dsMessageId=2396142
To unsubscribe from this discussion, e-mail: [users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org].
Re: svn merge --accept HUH ?
Posted by Paul Hammant <pa...@hammant.org>.
OK, found it ..
.. for --accept to be processed in any way whatsoever, /etc/subversion/
config can't contain any entries for diff3
One presumes the same would be true on if you specified --diff3-cmd on
the command line (which we were not).
Regards,
- Paul
On Sep 11, 2009, at 10:37 AM, Paul Hammant wrote:
> I'm a seven year user of Svn, and new to this list, greetings folks.
>
> Before filing a bug, I'm to check here with y'all. Here's what I'm
> trying to do ...
>
> cd <my-trunk-dir>
> svn up
>
> svn merge --accept theirs-full <url-of-branch-to-merge-in> .
>
>
> The last list, despite the doco, offers merge conflicts for me to
> arbitrate over. We have kdiff3 linked in, but I suspect that the same
> would be true for the command line arbitration too. I expected to not
> be bothered by such issues given I specified "--accept theirs-full".
>
> It looks like (undocumented) that --accept=theirs-full is also
> acceptable for svn. Mis-spell any of those chars and svn will barf
> with un-recognised params.
>
> We're using Svn 1.6.3 on server and client. Day to day commits are
> working well, and we've merged before but without the --accept option.
>
> Have I got the syntax wrong? Or is this feature not working when it
> should be (for merge as opposed to resolve).
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Regards,
>
> - Paul
>
> ------------------------------------------------------
> http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=1065&dsMessageId=2393636
>
> To unsubscribe from this discussion, e-mail: [users-
> unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org].
>
------------------------------------------------------
http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=1065&dsMessageId=2393646
To unsubscribe from this discussion, e-mail: [users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org].