On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 09:53:49AM +0200, Sven Uhlig wrote:
> Am 18.10.2012 15:06, schrieb Stefan Sperling:
> > And more help is always welcome, if you're interested :)
>
> I'm not sure if I understand the last part "if you're interested." Do
> you mean help as active member of the mailing list, a
Am 18.10.2012 15:06, schrieb Stefan Sperling:
> On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 02:10:25PM +0200, Sven Uhlig wrote:
>> Am 17.10.2012 19:12, schrieb Stefan Sperling:
>> At the time when the branches were created there was no use of shared
>> code. Later some functions seem to be unexpectedly usefull in the
On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 02:10:25PM +0200, Sven Uhlig wrote:
> Am 17.10.2012 19:12, schrieb Stefan Sperling:
> > On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 05:30:14PM +0200, Sven Uhlig wrote:
> >> There could be
> >> changes that are commited to prj1 that are requried in prj2 because of
> >> e.g. some shared code.
> >
Am 17.10.2012 19:12, schrieb Stefan Sperling:
> On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 05:30:14PM +0200, Sven Uhlig wrote:
>> There could be
>> changes that are commited to prj1 that are requried in prj2 because of
>> e.g. some shared code.
>>
>> I would do this with the following command:
>> svn merge -r A:B
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 07:12:17PM +0200, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> You then cherry-picked this revision from prj1 into prj2, causing a commit
> that added second.txt to prj2. Let's call this changeset 'prj2@50':
>
> A second.txt (copied from, say, prj1@49)
> Mergeinfo addition: Merged prj1:4
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 05:30:14PM +0200, Sven Uhlig wrote:
> > Ideally, you'd reintegrate prj1 into trunk first and then merge the
> > changes into prj2 from trunk, using a sequence such as:
>
> I guess this merge was a bad example and wrong as well. There could be
> changes that are commited to
Am 16.10.2012 18:02, schrieb Stefan Sperling:
> On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 01:17:40PM +0200, Sven Uhlig wrote:
>> Below is a .bat file for creating the repo with some more conflicts that
>> we do not understand. I would be happy if someone could explain these as
>> well.
>
> Please see my remarks bel
Am 17.10.2012 12:00, schrieb Stefan Sperling:
> On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 06:35:21PM +0200, Stefan Sperling wrote:
>> Again, sticking to simple branching/merging patterns where all merges
>> happen between directly related branches makes things a lot easier.
>
> Hi again Sven,
>
> I've looked at th
On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 06:35:21PM +0200, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> Again, sticking to simple branching/merging patterns where all merges
> happen between directly related branches makes things a lot easier.
Hi again Sven,
I've looked at this some more trying to come up with a simpler solution.
I
On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 06:02:55PM +0200, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> If you really must merge between unrelated branches, use the 2-URL
> merge syntax instead of the 'svn merge ^/foo' short-hand syntax and
> specify revisions for each of the 2 URL arguments to merge meaningful
> changesets. For insta
On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 01:17:40PM +0200, Sven Uhlig wrote:
> Below is a .bat file for creating the repo with some more conflicts that
> we do not understand. I would be happy if someone could explain these as
> well.
Please see my remarks below.
> @REM testsvn.bat
>
> cls
>
> svn --version
> @
Hello,
imagine the following repository structure:
/branches/prj1/first.txt
/branches/prj1/second.txt
/branches/prj2/first.txt
/branches/testing/first.txt
/branches/testing/second.txt
/trunk/first.txt
All first.txt in /branches/* are from the same /trunk/first.txt
The file was only changed in /t
12 matches
Mail list logo
