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.
Yes so far, this is the solution I've found documented on the web. It appears to work for everything but the $log$ keyword which is handled differently than other keywords. It is recommend that you not use the $log$ keyword because it can become out of date. I've only been using CVS for about a month so I'm no expert but so far this seems to work for me. Matt S. The content of this message is Applied Materials Confidential. If you are not the intended recipient and have received this message in error, any use or distribution is prohibited. Please notify me immediately by reply e-mail and delete this message from your computer system. Thank you. "David Hauck" <davidh at netacquire.com> 04/06/2005 10:22 AM To Matthew Schuckmann/ETEC/APPLIED MATERIALS at AMAT, <cvsnt at cvsnt.org cvsnt downloads at march-hare.com @CVSNT on Twitter CVSNT on Facebook> cc Subject RE: RCS Keyword Conflicts During Merge (was RE: [cvsnt] Re: minor Buginupdate in Build 1927) Hi Matt, yes, that would make sense (up -j -kk..., with subsequent commit omitting any keyword expansion options). So this is what you do to explicitly ignore these sorts of conflicts from appearing? Regards, -David > It that they way to ignore keywords when doing diffs and merges > was to use > the -kk option to prevent keywords from being expanded. > > It's worked in all cases for me so far. > > Matt S. > > > "David Hauck" <davidh at netacquire.com> wrote in message > news:mailman.27.1112806781.460.cvsnt at cvsnt.org... > > Hi, > > > > What do others normally do in these circumstances (i.e., conflicts that > > occur in RCS keywords)? Resolving these conflicts really doesn't do much > > since, in operation, the commit of the resulting resolution > always results > > in a new "value" for the keyword (depending on keyword expansion flags) > > 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. > > > > I'm interested in hearing how others manage this issue. > > > > Regards, > > -David > > > > > On Tue, 5 Apr 2005 18:42:09 +0200, Richard Wirth > > > <r.wirth at wirthware.de> wrote: > > > > > > >File contents: > > > > > > > ><<<<<<< Dmakefile > > > >;;; $Header: /home/cvs/repo1/Dmakefile,v 1.11 2003/10/16 > > > 14:28:07 me Exp $ > > > >======= > > > >;;; $Header: /home/cvs/repo1/Dmakefile,v 1.14 2005/04/05 > > > 13:01:57 other Exp $ > > > >>>>>>>> 1.14 > > > > > > > > > > > >This is the only conflict! So why is this a conflict at all?? > > > > > > Hmm, if there *is* a modification in the same line on the two > > > revisions then this is per definition a conflict. CVS can hardly > > > decide that the conflict is too small to bother with, can it? > > > > > > > > > /Bo > > > (Bo Berglund, developer in Sweden) > > > _______________________________________________ > > > 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