Daniel Becroft wrote on Fri, Dec 03, 2010 at 08:06:40 +1000:
> On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 7:50 AM, Hyrum K. Wright <
> hyrum_wri...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 3:43 PM, Daniel Becroft <djcbecr...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 7:34 PM, Philip Martin <
> > philip.mar...@wandisco.com>wrote:
> > ...
> > >> > I can't see any reason why all these files would need to be accessed.
> > I
> > >> seem
> > >> > to recall some discussion about preventing/warning merging into
> > modified
> > >> > working copies, could this be the cause?
> > >>
> > >> The new check is for a single revision working copy, not an unmodified
> > >> one.
> > >>
There is a flag that bypasses the new check:
--allow-mixed-revisions : Allow merge into mixed-revision working copy.
Use of this option is not recommended!
Please run 'svn update' instead.
> > >
> > > Ah, that makes more sense, I guess. Checking for an unmodified WC would
> > mean
> > > that the ability to run consecutive 'svn merge -c' commands would be
> > > removed.
> >
> > You can run 'svn merge -c17,85,90,123' if you need to merge multiple
> > revs in the same operation.
> >
>
> Very true, but I've had some instances where it's easier to do one merge -c
> (postponing conflicts), resolve, and then do the next one. Not all the time,
> but occasionally.
>
> Cheers,
> Daniel B.
