Re: [fossil-users] Breakthrough! [was Re: missing branch tag (?)]
On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 7:31 PM, B Harder brad.har...@gmail.com wrote: Breakthrough! I have a minimal(ish) example of a repo that is broken: Take the attached (broken.fsl, 62K) repo, co [vendor], and try to merge [trunk]. i end up with: http://www.wanderinghorse.net/tmp/brad-broke.png which is what i would expect? (Of course i had to lie and say i was user bch.) This is fossil version 1.27 [4137f4cda9] 2013-09-26 08:09:03 UTC -- - stephan beal http://wanderinghorse.net/home/stephan/ http://gplus.to/sgbeal ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] Breakthrough! [was Re: missing branch tag (?)]
On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 7:54 PM, Stephan Beal sgb...@googlemail.com wrote: This is fossil version 1.27 [4137f4cda9] 2013-09-26 08:09:03 UTC What led up to that... stephan@tiny:~/tmp/foo$ f co vendor vendor/x vendor/y vendor/z stephan@tiny:~/tmp/foo$ fst repository: /home/stephan/tmp/foo/../broken.fsl local-root: /home/stephan/tmp/foo/ config-db:/home/stephan/.fossil checkout: 15b9492ca5753743b6840a0ad27bc101539e0f5c 2013-10-10 17:41:40 UTC parent: 0560bf65a911ecf3c56ab8357e37b17a472e 2013-10-10 17:37:20 UTC merged-into: 823ef84391f087a1e0b1db29e3f67798b453e2fd 2013-10-10 17:43:32 UTC merged-into: 0a37e5f9ca3d45ae8de84490c65bb66b39c8d5e5 2013-10-10 17:42:57 UTC tags: vendor comment: vendor code (user: bch) stephan@tiny:~/tmp/foo$ f time === 2013-10-10 === 17:44:09 [af3c0cf56a] trunk changes (user: bch tags: trunk) 17:43:32 [823ef84391] *MERGE* merge [vendor] to [trunk] (user: bch tags: trunk) 17:42:57 [0a37e5f9ca] *MERGE* merge [vendor] to [feature] (user: bch tags: feature) 17:42:04 [319b2aab08] additional changes (user: bch tags: trunk) 17:41:40 [15b9492ca5] *CURRENT* vendor code (user: bch tags: vendor) 17:40:53 [676e310103] Edit [0560bf65a911ecf3]: Add tag origin. (user: bch) 17:39:37 [41607806fa] feature change (user: bch tags: feature) 17:38:23 [22d713ee40] *BRANCH* change on trunk (user: bch tags: trunk) 17:38:06 [7cbfa2a065] initial trunk ci (user: bch tags: trunk) 17:37:20 [0560bf65a9] *BRANCH* initial empty check-in (user: bch tags: trunk, origin) stephan@tiny:~/tmp/foo$ f merge trunk ADDED a ADDED b ADDED c fossil undo is available to undo changes to the working checkout. stephan@tiny:~/tmp/foo$ fst repository: /home/stephan/tmp/foo/../broken.fsl local-root: /home/stephan/tmp/foo/ config-db:/home/stephan/.fossil checkout: 15b9492ca5753743b6840a0ad27bc101539e0f5c 2013-10-10 17:41:40 UTC parent: 0560bf65a911ecf3c56ab8357e37b17a472e 2013-10-10 17:37:20 UTC merged-into: 823ef84391f087a1e0b1db29e3f67798b453e2fd 2013-10-10 17:43:32 UTC merged-into: 0a37e5f9ca3d45ae8de84490c65bb66b39c8d5e5 2013-10-10 17:42:57 UTC tags: vendor comment: vendor code (user: bch) ADDED_BY_MERGE a ADDED_BY_MERGE b ADDED_BY_MERGE c MERGED_WITH af3c0cf56a37b79a7d46b3a1a940a1f2dfd2df19 stephan@tiny:~/tmp/foo$ f com -m foo --user bch New_Version: 2487f5846909ec0b33dfc00cdf61f7c0bd8468bd stephan@tiny:~/tmp/foo$ fst repository: /home/stephan/tmp/foo/../broken.fsl local-root: /home/stephan/tmp/foo/ config-db:/home/stephan/.fossil checkout: 2487f5846909ec0b33dfc00cdf61f7c0bd8468bd 2013-10-10 17:50:21 UTC parent: 15b9492ca5753743b6840a0ad27bc101539e0f5c 2013-10-10 17:41:40 UTC merged-from: af3c0cf56a37b79a7d46b3a1a940a1f2dfd2df19 2013-10-10 17:44:09 UTC tags: vendor comment: foo (user: bch) -- - stephan beal http://wanderinghorse.net/home/stephan/ http://gplus.to/sgbeal ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] Breakthrough! [was Re: missing branch tag (?)]
hrmmm... interesting. I was getting no common ancestor. I closed that repo to mail it. You did you testing (successfully). I re-opened the repo to replicate my results, and in fact it worked fine. If you (anybody) have the time, would you create a repo and go through the ~10 steps manually and see what happens? What I was concentrating on is: [vendor] is branched off initial emtpy ci [feature] is branched off [trunk] [feature] -[vendor] before [trunk] - [vendor] [feature] - [trunk] then fails w/ no common ancestors Now, out of curiosity I'm going to close/open my test/clone problem repo. On 10/10/13, Stephan Beal sgb...@googlemail.com wrote: On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 7:31 PM, B Harder brad.har...@gmail.com wrote: Breakthrough! I have a minimal(ish) example of a repo that is broken: Take the attached (broken.fsl, 62K) repo, co [vendor], and try to merge [trunk]. i end up with: http://www.wanderinghorse.net/tmp/brad-broke.png which is what i would expect? (Of course i had to lie and say i was user bch.) This is fossil version 1.27 [4137f4cda9] 2013-09-26 08:09:03 UTC -- - stephan beal http://wanderinghorse.net/home/stephan/ http://gplus.to/sgbeal -- Brad Harder Method Logic Digital Consulting http://www.methodlogic.net/ http://twitter.com/bcharder ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] Breakthrough! [was Re: missing branch tag (?)]
closed/opened my more complex real-world problem repo and problem still exists. On 10/10/13, B Harder brad.har...@gmail.com wrote: hrmmm... interesting. I was getting no common ancestor. I closed that repo to mail it. You did you testing (successfully). I re-opened the repo to replicate my results, and in fact it worked fine. If you (anybody) have the time, would you create a repo and go through the ~10 steps manually and see what happens? What I was concentrating on is: [vendor] is branched off initial emtpy ci [feature] is branched off [trunk] [feature] -[vendor] before [trunk] - [vendor] [feature] - [trunk] then fails w/ no common ancestors Now, out of curiosity I'm going to close/open my test/clone problem repo. On 10/10/13, Stephan Beal sgb...@googlemail.com wrote: On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 7:31 PM, B Harder brad.har...@gmail.com wrote: Breakthrough! I have a minimal(ish) example of a repo that is broken: Take the attached (broken.fsl, 62K) repo, co [vendor], and try to merge [trunk]. i end up with: http://www.wanderinghorse.net/tmp/brad-broke.png which is what i would expect? (Of course i had to lie and say i was user bch.) This is fossil version 1.27 [4137f4cda9] 2013-09-26 08:09:03 UTC -- - stephan beal http://wanderinghorse.net/home/stephan/ http://gplus.to/sgbeal -- Brad Harder Method Logic Digital Consulting http://www.methodlogic.net/ http://twitter.com/bcharder -- Brad Harder Method Logic Digital Consulting http://www.methodlogic.net/ http://twitter.com/bcharder ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] Breakthrough! [was Re: missing branch tag (?)]
WARNING - no common ancestor: somefile WARNING - no common ancestor: someotherfile WARNING - no common ancestor: anotherfile ... On 10/10/13, B Harder brad.har...@gmail.com wrote: closed/opened my more complex real-world problem repo and problem still exists. On 10/10/13, B Harder brad.har...@gmail.com wrote: hrmmm... interesting. I was getting no common ancestor. I closed that repo to mail it. You did you testing (successfully). I re-opened the repo to replicate my results, and in fact it worked fine. If you (anybody) have the time, would you create a repo and go through the ~10 steps manually and see what happens? What I was concentrating on is: [vendor] is branched off initial emtpy ci [feature] is branched off [trunk] [feature] -[vendor] before [trunk] - [vendor] [feature] - [trunk] then fails w/ no common ancestors Now, out of curiosity I'm going to close/open my test/clone problem repo. On 10/10/13, Stephan Beal sgb...@googlemail.com wrote: On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 7:31 PM, B Harder brad.har...@gmail.com wrote: Breakthrough! I have a minimal(ish) example of a repo that is broken: Take the attached (broken.fsl, 62K) repo, co [vendor], and try to merge [trunk]. i end up with: http://www.wanderinghorse.net/tmp/brad-broke.png which is what i would expect? (Of course i had to lie and say i was user bch.) This is fossil version 1.27 [4137f4cda9] 2013-09-26 08:09:03 UTC -- - stephan beal http://wanderinghorse.net/home/stephan/ http://gplus.to/sgbeal -- Brad Harder Method Logic Digital Consulting http://www.methodlogic.net/ http://twitter.com/bcharder -- Brad Harder Method Logic Digital Consulting http://www.methodlogic.net/ http://twitter.com/bcharder -- Brad Harder Method Logic Digital Consulting http://www.methodlogic.net/ http://twitter.com/bcharder ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] Breakthrough! [was Re: missing branch tag (?)]
Thus said B Harder on Thu, 10 Oct 2013 11:03:59 -0700: I was getting no common ancestor. I too get the warning when using your broken.fsl if I merge into the feature branch from trunk: $ f mer 823ef8 WARNING - no common ancestor: a WARNING - no common ancestor: b WARNING - no common ancestor: c However, I notice that I don't get it if I merge with the trunk just prior to that commit: $ f merge 319b2a UPDATE c fossil undo is available to undo changes to the working checkout. 823ef8 has a merge in from the vendor branch which was forked prior to adding a, b, and c to the trunk. It looks like when the vendor branch was merged into trunk, it somehow lost the ancestry of a, b, and c? I'm not sure if this is correct behavior or not. Andy -- TAI64 timestamp: 40005256f2cb ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
