[cvsnt] Mergepoint issues on 2.5.0.3 b2382

[Andreas Krey]

On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 18:38:55 +0000, Tony Hoyle wrote:
> Andreas Krey wrote:
> > It has become one by inserting the merge arrow. 1.1.2.3 contains
> > the changes made in 1.2 as well as the head, so it is effectively
> 
> But 1.2 does not contain the changes made in 1.1.2.3.

Of course not. Merge arrows have a direction, just like all
other lines in the revision graph.

> > But it happens to yield the correct result. And that is not a
> 
> .. in this occasion, since you wanted to copy.

It's only a copy if you do the backmerge before anything else
happened on the trunk. Also, when I copy outside cvs the
corresponding merge arrow is missing.

> If in the merge A->B you had discarded some/most changes as being 
> irrelevant, committed, then done some more work on branch B then the 
> merge back must not use 1.2 since 1.2 is not the logical ancestor

True. But when you don't actually bring in everything from 1.2 then
there should not be a merge arrow for that action in the first place.

You are equally at a loss if you use that merge arrow for selecting
the common ancestor for the next merge *into* the branch; you will
still miss the stuff that you've manually thrown out at the first
merge.

> I'm not sure such a problem is solvable easily, either.

If you don't have the parts you want to bring over into
another branch as separately committed changes then the
version control can't help you anymore, obviously.

Andreas

-- 
np: 4'33