[svnbook] r4123 committed - * en/book/ch04-branching-and-merging.xml...

[Daniel Shahaf]

svnbook at googlecode.com wrote on Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 20:49:21 +0000:
> Revision: 4123
> Author:   ptburba at gmail.com
> Date:     Thu Oct 27 13:48:50 2011
> Log:      * en/book/ch04-branching-and-merging.xml
>   (svn.branchemerge.basicmerging.stayinsync): Demonstrate the new 1.7
>    restriction on mixed-rev merges in one of the early merge examples.
> 
> 
> http://code.google.com/p/svnbook/source/detail?r=4123
> 
> Modified:
>  /trunk/en/book/ch04-branching-and-merging.xml
> 
> =======================================
> --- /trunk/en/book/ch04-branching-and-merging.xml	Wed Oct 19 22:47:35 2011
> +++ /trunk/en/book/ch04-branching-and-merging.xml	Thu Oct 27 13:48:50 2011
> @@ -690,6 +690,36 @@
> 
>        <informalexample>
>          <screen>
> +$ svn merge ^/calc/trunk
> +svn: E195020: Cannot merge into mixed-revision working copy
> [357:378]; try updating first
> +</screen>
> +      </informalexample>
> +
> +      <para>Well that was unexpected! What happened was that while
> +        making changes to your branch over the past week you now have
> +        a working copy that is at mixed-revisions
> +        (see <xref linkend="svn.basic.in-action.mixedrevs"/>).  With
> +        the release of Subversion 1.7 the merge command disables merges

"merge" in <tags/>?

> +        into mixed-revision working copies by default.  Without going
> +        into too much detail, this is because of limitations in the way
> +        merges are tracked by the svn:mergeinfo property (see the
> +        section called

s/the section called//?

> +        <xref linkend="svn.branchmerge.basicmerging.mergeinfo"/>
> +        for details).  These limitations mean that merges into
> +        mixed-revision working copies can result in unexpected text
> +        and tree conflicts.  The merge command option

(ditto)

> +        <option>--allow-mixed-revisions</option> allows you to override
> +        this prohibition, but you should only do that if you understand
> +        the ramifications and have a good reason for doing so.  We
> +        don't have any reason to do so here, so we update the working
> +        copy and then reattempt the merge.</para>
> +
> +      <informalexample>
> +        <screen>
> +$ svn up
> +Updating '.':
> +At revision 380.
> +

Personally I expected the update to pull in some changes.  YMMV.

>  $ svn merge ^/calc/trunk
>  --- Merging r357 through r380 into '.':
>  U    integer.c
> 
> _______________________________________________
> svnbook-dev mailing list
> svnbook-dev at red-bean.com
> http://www.red-bean.com/mailman/listinfo/svnbook-dev