[cvsnt] Merging problems, getting strange conflicts....
tony.hoyle at march-hare.com
Tue May 27 23:36:28 BST 2008
Bo Berglund wrote:
> Now, in the second (1-way) merge CVSNT should have noted that 18.104.22.168
> (tip of branch) already contained all of the head changes from the
> original branch point to the HEAD revision 1.11 since the mergepoints
> would tell it so.
> Consequently there is no need to get any data from HEAD, just copy over
> the contents of branch in the merge process.
Support for bidirectional merges varies between versions - it was
removed a while back after a couple of people reported loss of data due
to it, then after some discussion on the list put back as an option
(just had a look and it's not in the 2.5.04 tree.. might be in the
2.5.03 drops). Evs has it, but that's a different mechanism.
> So why are the mergepoints not used?
The other case is if cvsnt detects *any* 'difficult' cases it'll fall
back to branchpoint merges rather than risk losing stuff - these are
mostly things like branches with no revisions (where the mergepoint is
in the parent branch but finding it can be tricky).
More information about the cvsnt