-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Kyrre Kristiansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hello, all > > There's been a few discussions here where I work about > branches and merging. The Cederquist manual states > that: > > "If you just use the cvs update -j R1fix m.c command > again, CVS will attempt to merge again the changes > which you have already merged, which can have > undesirable side effects." [1] > > We've been tagging all the merging we've done between > our main development branch (MAIN) and a branch for > bug fixing (Patch) on every merge, and have used the > suggested method of using two -j options when > merging.[2] > > My question is: Is this really necesary? Sadly, yes. It looks like the CVSNT folks have fixed this for simple merges by adding a mergpoint extension to the RCS files. At the present time, CVS does not have any similar annotation to find the most recent equivalence points and so must continue to use the greatest common ancestor algorithms. > If I want to merge the head of the patch branch > with the head of the main branch, is it not > exough to do "update -r Patch ."? If you have a tree with lots of merges on a branch and mainline go ahead and run the experiment in a checked out top-of-tree. It will not be a problem for you unless you commit the results. I suspect you will find lots of conflict blocks in the resulting files that need to be resolved for which you have already done resolution once. Good luck, -- Mark -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFBQcvl3x41pRYZE/gRAn9EAJ0VMglp/L2u7zRGAOOqL0grnKEmSgCg06Mn BdXnHqQWUZqpA5g81jOA+vg= =bUT8 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Info-cvs mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/info-cvs