You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@subversion.apache.org by Andrey Paramonov <pa...@acdlabs.ru> on 2012/07/03 09:36:03 UTC
[Bug] Should allow to merge into mixed-revision working copy when
specifying --ignore-ancestry
If you merge "the old way", i.e. specifying --ignore-ancestry,
Subversion sometimes requires you to update your WC:
svn: E195020: Cannot merge into mixed-revision working copy
[xxxxx:xxxxx]; try updating first
It wasn't the case for 1.6, and thus may be considered a regression.
Current behavior is very annoying when doing multiple merge-commit
operations, especially into large working copy. In such case, I *know*
that I have up-to-date WC after each commit, but I still have to waste
time updating.
Best wishes,
Andrey Paramonov
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: [Bug] Should allow to merge into mixed-revision working copy
when specifying --ignore-ancestry
Posted by Andrey Paramonov <pa...@acdlabs.ru>.
On 03.07.2012 13:20, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 03, 2012 at 11:56:47AM +0400, Andrey Paramonov wrote:
>> On 03.07.2012 11:50, Johan Corveleyn wrote:
>>> Try '--allow-mixed-revisions'
>>>
>>
>> Hmmm, svn help merge says:
>>
>> --allow-mixed-revisions : Allow merge into mixed-revision working copy.
>> Use of this option is not recommended!
>> Please run 'svn update' instead.
>>
>> I believe --ignore-ancestry should be enough to disable
>> mixed-revisions check.
>
> --ignore-ancestry (and --notice-ancestry) controls comparison behaviour
> in diff/merge/mergeinfo subcommands. It does not mean "run a merge like
> Subversion 1.4 did".
>
I believe it's more important that --ignore-ancestry disables *write* of
mergeinfo in this case. So no mergeinfo = no problem with mixed-revision
working copy, right?
> So please use --allow-mixed-revisions. It was added precisely because
> people might want to disable this check for some reason.
>
Well, that's fair workaround.
Thank you for your work,
Andrey Paramonov
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: [Bug] Should allow to merge into mixed-revision working copy
when specifying --ignore-ancestry
Posted by Stefan Sperling <st...@elego.de>.
On Tue, Jul 03, 2012 at 11:56:47AM +0400, Andrey Paramonov wrote:
> On 03.07.2012 11:50, Johan Corveleyn wrote:
> >Try '--allow-mixed-revisions'
> >
>
> Hmmm, svn help merge says:
>
> --allow-mixed-revisions : Allow merge into mixed-revision working copy.
> Use of this option is not recommended!
> Please run 'svn update' instead.
>
> I believe --ignore-ancestry should be enough to disable
> mixed-revisions check.
--ignore-ancestry (and --notice-ancestry) controls comparison behaviour
in diff/merge/mergeinfo subcommands. It does not mean "run a merge like
Subversion 1.4 did".
So please use --allow-mixed-revisions. It was added precisely because
people might want to disable this check for some reason.
Re: [Bug] Should allow to merge into mixed-revision working copy
when specifying --ignore-ancestry
Posted by Andrey Paramonov <pa...@acdlabs.ru>.
On 03.07.2012 11:50, Johan Corveleyn wrote:
> Try '--allow-mixed-revisions'
>
Hmmm, svn help merge says:
--allow-mixed-revisions : Allow merge into mixed-revision working copy.
Use of this option is not recommended!
Please run 'svn update' instead.
I believe --ignore-ancestry should be enough to disable mixed-revisions
check.
Best wishes,
Andrey Paramonov
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: [Bug] Should allow to merge into mixed-revision working copy when
specifying --ignore-ancestry
Posted by Johan Corveleyn <jc...@gmail.com>.
Try '--allow-mixed-revisions'
--
Johan
On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 9:36 AM, Andrey Paramonov <pa...@acdlabs.ru> wrote:
> If you merge "the old way", i.e. specifying --ignore-ancestry, Subversion
> sometimes requires you to update your WC:
>
> svn: E195020: Cannot merge into mixed-revision working copy [xxxxx:xxxxx];
> try updating first
>
> It wasn't the case for 1.6, and thus may be considered a regression.
>
> Current behavior is very annoying when doing multiple merge-commit
> operations, especially into large working copy. In such case, I *know* that
> I have up-to-date WC after each commit, but I still have to waste time
> updating.
>
> Best wishes,
> Andrey Paramonov
>
> --
> This message has been scanned for viruses and
> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
> believed to be clean.
>