In a message of Wed, 08 Dec 2004 14:42:58 -0800 Received on Wed, 08 Dec 2004 23:43:31 +0100
Mark D. Baushke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote to: Michael Lemke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >Hash: SHA1 > >> >> >> >> You could reverse the arguments of the merge operation as an >> >> alternative... >> > >> >Well, that's an idea, why didn't I think of it... But still no >> >luck: >> > >> >$ cvs up -j DEVP_4 -j QP_LAST_WORKING_VERSION PATCH002.htm >> >R PATCH002.htm >> >cvs update: file PATCH002.htm exists, but has been added in revision >> >QP_LAST_WORKING_VERSION >> > >> >and it's still not there. >> > >> >> >> What does it mean? > >Merges happen in a checked out tree using a three-way merge. If your >tree is 'missing' the baseline version from your tree, Hm, this gets interesting. I got similar messages when I did the initial merge. So the `missing baseline version' is the one in the sandbox, right? And `missing' means locally removed? >then cvs assumes >this was your intent and supresses doing the inverse of the merge. Does this only affect the inverse? I'd guess not but I better ask. >So, >in this case, you will need to 'cvs add' the files back into your >sandbox before you can completely restore things to the way they were >before you did the botched merge operation. Ok, I'll try this tomorrow. Thanks again, Michael _______________________________________________ Info-cvs mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/info-cvs
