Mark Triggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> To avoid that, you should use the bookmark missing feature, and merge only
>> patches with the mention [NOT MERGED]. In the case above, this would have
>> indicated Stefan's patch.
>
> Yeah, this is what I've been doing.
Ah ah, look:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Merged from Matthieu (patch368-374), Masatake (patch67-70)
Mark Triggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
2004-07-24 06:10:15 GMT
Merges:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Merged from Matthieu (patch375-380), Stefan (patch76)
Mark Triggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
2004-07-26 04:09:50 GMT
Merges:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Look at your patch 103. This is a merge from me or from Masatake. It
was commited the 24th at 6 o'clock. Then comes Stefan's patch, (the
same day at 8 o'clock in the evening) which doesn't merge from you. (I
think he just couldn't because you didn't push your patch-103 on your
mirror when he commited :-( ).
Conclusion : Always push your revisions on your mirror ! (I have a
post-commit hook to do this.)
However, each problem has a solution : After merging from Stefan, if
you suspect something goes wrong, try to answer the following
question: "What does Stefan have that I haven't?" Hmm, Stefan misses
your patches 103 and 104, but both of them are merges of patches
present in Stefan's archive. Therefore, your tree and his tree should
be the same. Try to tla-changes your tree against his one, the only
two differences should be the logs for your two patches.
I've just checked, and it's true.
--
Matthieu
