One more note: the file that went into the repository with expanded keywords 
also has Windows (CRLF) line endings in the repository. It looks like the svn 
client sent the file "as is" ignoring the svn:keywords and svn:eol-style=native 
properties (or is this a server issue?). This can also be seen nicely in the 
output of svn diff -c <rev>: for the file in question there are lines like "+ 
... $Author some.user $" and all the lines end with ^M. Strange enough that 
this happened only to one file in a commit that included three file renames.

 

I'm still trying to reproduce this behaviour. Any hints would be appreciated.

 

Regards,

  Thomas

 

________________________________

Von: Becker, Thomas [mailto:thomas.bec...@torex.com] 
Gesendet: Dienstag, 26. Juli 2011 14:09
An: users@subversion.apache.org
Betreff: strange merge conflict wrt. keywords

 

Hi,

 

We encountered a strange merge conflict:

 

A branch was created from trunk, nothing was ever committed to this branch and 
this branch was never the source of a merge. After some time, when merging from 
trunk to the freshly checked-out branch we got a text conflict for a particular 
file.

 

It turned out that the trunk version of this file had substituted keywords in 
the repository when the branch was created. With the next commit on trunk this 
changed back to the un-expanded forms.

 

The change of the revision where the substituted keywords appeared in the 
repository was a move of three files in order to change an upper case letter to 
lower case in the file names. However, the substituted keywords appeared only 
in one of the files. The svn:keywords property was "Id Date Revision Author 
URL" for all three files in all revisions.

 

My assumption is that when doing the merge from trunk to branch the keyword 
line is subject to an incoming change (because they changed back to the generic 
form on trunk) as well as to local substitution which leads to the observed 
conflict.

 

My questions now are:

-          Is this the expected behaviour or should incoming changes on 
keywords be ignored?

-          How could the substituted keyword get into the repository?

 

For the revision where the substituted keywords appear in the repository we 
used Windows clients and server (Visual SVN) in whatever version was recent in 
January 2011. The merge conflict can be observed with Linux and Windows clients 
in various 1.6 versions.

 

Regards,

  Thomas

 





This email and its attachments may be confidential and are intended solely for 
the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. Any views or opinions 
expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those 
of Torex (Torex Group of Companies).  If you are not the intended recipient of 
this email and its attachments, you must take no action based upon them, nor 
must you copy or show them to anyone.  Please contact the sender if you believe 
you have received this email in error.

Torex Retail Solutions GmbH
Sitz der Gesellschaft: Berlin. HRB 102273B Amtsgericht Berlin Charlottenburg.
UST.-ID: DE170817515. Steuer-Nr. 27/448/07028. WEEE-Reg.-Nr. DE 30664749.
Geschäftsführer: Stephen Callaghan, Martin Timmann.



 

This email and its attachments may be confidential and are intended solely for 
the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. Any views or opinions 
expressed 
are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Torex 
(Torex Group of Companies). If you are not the intended recipient of this email 
and its attachments, you must take no action based upon them, nor must you copy 
or show them to anyone.  Please contact the sender if you believe you have 
received 
this email in error.

Torex Retail Solutions GmbH
Sitz der Gesellschaft: Berlin. HRB 102273B Amtsgericht Berlin Charlottenburg.
UST.-ID: DE170817515. Steuer-Nr. 27/448/07028. WEEE-Reg.-Nr. DE 30664749.
Geschäftsführer: Stephen Callaghan, Martin Timmann.


.

Reply via email to