I'm not sure I would recommend this technique.) I did it because  
merge was giving me a result I didn't understand, but I did  
understand how it out to go, so export seemed to be a clean way of  
forcing the issue. I would imagine that as I understand svn better I  
won't do that any more. It's usually better to diagnose and do the  
right thing.

jim

On Sep 20, 2006, at 9:54 AM, Benjamin Shine wrote:

> In this case, the history for lpp-2587.lzx is not particularly  
> important -- it's a test file, after all, and the change history  
> was restructuring the test from the user-provided test, which is in  
> jira, to an automated test.
>
> But, as the guy who added lpp-2587.lzx, I am concerned about why it  
> got weird. Seems like only your very-carefulness rescued it.
>
> It feels like merging is more error-prone with svn than with  
> perforce. We knew this would be the case going into the change,  
> but, now that we're in it, ouch.
>
> I haven't seen export used in the context of a merge before. What  
> was the advantage of export over merge, like this:
> svn merge -r1718:1719 http://svn.openlaszlo.org/openlaszlo/trunk/ 
> test/bugs/lpp-2587.lzx
>
> Could you update the wiki with what you've been learning lately  
> about merging?
>
>
> On Sep 19, 2006, at 9:26 PM, Jim Grandy wrote:
>
>> Umm, glad you asked... as it turns out, I left two steps out of my  
>> narrative. The middle bit should have been:
>>
>> svn export -r 1765 http://svn.openlaszlo.org/openlaszlo/trunk/test/ 
>> bugs/lpp-2587.lzx test/bugs/lpp-2587.lzx
>> svn add test/bugs/lpp-2587.lzx
>> svn merge -r 1837:1838 http://svn.openlaszlo.org/openlaszlo/trunk/ 
>> test/bugs/lpp-2587.lzx test/bugs/lpp-2587.lzx
>>
>> And I need to resubmit my changeset.
>>
>> The reason was that for some reason test/bugs/lpp-2587.lzx hadn't  
>> been merged over from legals. It was created in r1719 and modified  
>> twice, in r1765 and r1838. The previous trunk->legals merge should  
>> have brought over that file in r1719 and merged the change from  
>> r1765, but it didn't.
>>
>> So this was an expedient -- and actually kind of a weird mix of  
>> expedience and caution. Why didn't I do:
>>
>> svn export -r 1719 http://svn.openlaszlo.org/openlaszlo/trunk/test/ 
>> bugs/lpp-2587.lzx test/bugs/lpp-2587.lzx
>> svn merge -r 1764:1765 http://svn.openlaszlo.org/openlaszlo/trunk/ 
>> test/bugs/lpp-2587.lzx test/bugs/lpp-2587.lzx
>> svn merge -r 1837:1838 http://svn.openlaszlo.org/openlaszlo/trunk/ 
>> test/bugs/lpp-2587.lzx test/bugs/lpp-2587.lzx
>>
>> to preserve change history?
>>
>> Or, if history wasn't a concern, simply
>>
>> svn export -r 1837 http://svn.openlaszlo.org/openlaszlo/trunk/test/ 
>> bugs/lpp-2587.lzx test/bugs/lpp-2587.lzx
>>
>> ?
>>
>> Anyway, I'm not sure it really matters.
>>
>> But we should look into why lpp-2587.lzx didn't make it into the  
>> last merge (which did cover 1719 and 1765). Perhaps other files  
>> didn't make it? I suppose I'll spelunk a bit on that.
>>
>> jim
>>
>> On Sep 19, 2006, at 5:48 PM, Benjamin Shine wrote:
>>
>>> Why did you have to do special handling of lpp-2587.lzx?
>>>
>>> On Sep 19, 2006, at 4:07 PM, Jim Grandy wrote:
>>>> svn export -r 1765 http://svn.openlaszlo.org/openlaszlo/trunk/ 
>>>> test/bugs/lpp-2587.lzx test/bugs/lpp-2587.lzx
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>


_______________________________________________
Laszlo-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.openlaszlo.org/mailman/listinfo/laszlo-dev

Reply via email to