On Apr 29, 2010, at 3:47 AM, Daniel Becroft wrote: > > [b2]$ svn merge --dry-run ^/branches/b1 > --- Merging r2 through r4 into '.': > C README > Summary of conflicts: > Tree conflicts: 1 > > > After r3, you'll need to do a '--record-only' merge of r4 into the second > branch: > > (untested) svn merge --record-only -c 4 ^/branches/b1 > > SVN doesn't seem to trace back through the commits to see that r3 was really > a merge from b2->b1. Like yourself, I initially though that it would be able > to deal with this, but it doesn't seem to (and there is probably a very good > reason why it can't). > > Cheers, > Daniel B.
Well, as you can see in the log, it also wants to merge r3 back, not just r4, so we would have to "record-only" 2 of them, it seems. The problem is, we utilize a "home made" automerge utility that constantly merges all changes from b1 to b2, but merges from b2 to b1 are done manually. After r4 is committed, it produces conflict for automerge immediately and this is what I am trying to avoid. By the way, maybe there is an intelligent automerge utility out there that can handle this kind of things, if anyone knows. Thanks, Vadym
