RetroSearch Browse

Sat Jan 31 11:45:04 CET 2009 · http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2009-January/085763.html

Martin v. Löwis wrote:
>> I can see how "svn resolved ." gets it right (now that I understand how
>> the conflict is being produced and then fixed automatically by svnmerge,
>> but not actually marked as resolved).
>>
>> I still don't understand how "svn revert ." can avoid losing the
>> metadata changes unless svnmerge is told to modify the properties again
>> after they have been reverted. Or am I misunderstanding SVN, and the
>> revert command doesn't actually revert property changes?
> 
> Oops, I meant "svn resolved ." all the time. When I wrote
> "svn revert .", it was by mistake.

Ah, in that case we now agree on the right way to do things :)

With the explanation as to where the (spurious) conflict is coming from
on the initial merge to the maintenance branch,  I'm now happy that the
only time the revert + regenerate metadata should ever be needed is if
someone else checks in a backport between the time when I start a
backport and when I go to check it in (which is pretty unlikely in
practice).

Cheers,
Nick.

-- 
Nick Coghlan   |   ncoghlan at gmail.com   |   Brisbane, Australia
---------------------------------------------------------------

Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Showing content from http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2009-January/085763.html below:

[Python-Dev] [Python-checkins] Merging to the 3.0 maintenance branch