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 Glen, > David Hauck wrote: > >>Something I just noticed -- by the file name, looks like you've been > >>merging the branch that the binary doc is on. If you used cvs up -kk > >>-jbranch to do that then you probably messed up the file at that point > >>since -kk tells cvs to treat files like text. I don't see that in your > >>log though, so this might not be applicable. > > > > > > I mentioned this in the continuation of an early thread > yesterday. I find > > the -kk "pollution" of binary file treatment during a merge a > real drag. It > > seems reasonable to assume that -kk would (should) have no > effect on binary > > files (notwithstanding CVS docs that explicitly indicate the > incompatibility > > of -kk and binary files during a update merge). You may not > have anything to > > add on this, but I wanted to include a comment in this thread as well. > > I've never used -kk with merging, never needed it and AKAICT haven't had > any ill effect by not using it. Is it because you're using $Log$ (it's > known to have merge problems) or some other reason? No, we use $Revision$ (sometimes $Id$ - we never use $Log$) and without -kk I often get merge conflicts on this line when the file in question has changed on both the to and from branches. You seem to be indicating that the update merge should be able to handle this without -kk? -David > -- > Glen Starrett > _______________________________________________ > 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