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 instance, say you created '^/branches/A' from trunk in > r399, and then made some interesting changes between r410 and r450 on > branch A. You want to merge those changes into a completely unrelated > branch called 'testing'. Try something like this: > > svn switch ^/branches/testing > svn merge ^/branches/A@410 ^/branches/prj@450 .
Sorry the above should have said: svn merge ^/branches/testing@410 ^/branches/A@450 . This assumes that the delta between testing@410 and A@450 contains only changes that are unique to branch A, which will be the case unless you merged changes from other branches into A between r410 and 450. You can check the delta with the following command: svn diff ^/branches/testing@410 ^/branches/A@450 If the delta contains changes you don't want to merge, you can either run the merge anyway and resolve conflicts (if any), or try this instead: svn merge ^/branches/A@410 ^/branches/A@450 . If the above gives you tree-conflicts either resolve them as appropriate or try again with --ignore-ancestry: svn merge --ignore-ancestry ^/branches/A@410 ^/branches/A@450 . If you throw away the 'testing' branch after testing anyway, the lack of mergeinfo recorded during the --ignore-ancestry merge might not be a problem. Again, sticking to simple branching/merging patterns where all merges happen between directly related branches makes things a lot easier.
