Schwenk, Jeanie writes: > > I received this from one of our engineers here (I added a few details for > clarity). I think the merge behaved this way because of the order of the > tags. Is that correct?
Yes and no. > So I tried something different. I checked in my current, beautified > version, so that my version and the branch were both beautified and both > committed. Then I did this: > > cvs update -j HEAD -j systema_v1_2 EQC_RobotArm.java > > The results of this were bizarre. These files were merged. Where there > were conflicts, the contents of systema_v1_2 were taken only. No conflict > file was created. ViewCVS's diff clearly showed the conflicts ... I know > they are there. That's not bizzarre, that's exactly what [s]he asked for. That particular update command says, "Please take all of the changes between version HEAD and version systema_v1_2 and apply them to the current version in my working directory". Since the current version *was* HEAD, there aren't any local changes that need to be merged and thus no chance of conflicts; it effectively replaces the current version in toto with version systema_v1_2. The original update with just one -j option is the correct way to merge. I would presume that the extended conflicts are due to subtle differences in the "beautification", which is why doing such things is generally inadvisable when branches are, or may be, involved. -Larry Jones Talk about someone easy to exploit! -- Calvin _______________________________________________ Info-cvs mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/info-cvs
