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.
On 2004-02-02, Phil Richards <news at derived-software.ltd.uk> wrote: > On 2004-02-02, Harrison, Andrew <andy.harrison at anite.com> wrote: > > Cool, I guess that was prompted by my questions last week? There was some > > concern then that this patch "might break things". Can I ask what things > > might get broken and how they would break? > Nothing *should* be broken, but just keep an eye on merges back and forth > between branch and mainline. It works in all the cases I've tested, but > there are possibly edge cases I haven't tested (deleted, resurrected file > in various combinations). Well, I've done my first "production" two-way merge and had mostly positive results. The merging (as before) worked fine, and no null deltas were made. The only glitch relates to deleted files. For the file in question: 1. A branch was made (call it B1). 2. The file was updated on the mainline (ML). 3. ML --> B1 merge performed, and committed on B1. 4. The file was deleted on ML. 5. ML --> B1 merge performed. At (5.) a warning message is printed stating that the file has been deleted on the ML but modified on the branch. This is true - but one might hope that the server would notice that the only modification on the branch was a merge from the mainline, and that the version on the branch was the same as the deleted one on the mainline, and mark it as "removed". There shouldn't be a problem as long as you take notice of the warning messages from CVS. If you don't, you are probably making a mess of things already :-) phil p.s. The new (beta) WinCVS has some cool mergepoint arrows in the graph view now. Neat! -- change name before "@" to "phil" for email