On 2006-11-13T16:51:07, Alan Robertson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Me too. If you'd have been around I'd have tried to find out what this
> was about.
>
> What happened was this:
>
> I did a commit.
> I tried to push to -dev
> I was informed that I needed to pull first
> I did the pull from -dev
> I was informed I needed to merge some things together.
> I issued the merge command.
> There were no conflicts, so I didn't have to do anything
> manually.
> Then I had to commit the things I had to merge and push
> them back to -dev.
I've had this happen to myself. What happens is that your commit is
relative to an older revision (ie, one which has several children), and
not relative to the tip.
If you commit at that stage, you create a branch in the upstream repo
(which is how I screwed up ;-); so merge first.
The sequence you went through is actually correct, but the merge message
is ... uhm ... ;-)
> I have NO IDEA what this was about. It sounds a bit
> like a bug to me... :-(
It's not a bug (I once had a branch I couldn't merge back myself; that
probably was a bug ;-), but a different modus operandi.
Only when you commit and push relative to the tip can you avoid this,
which isn't likely to happen if the changes take a while to work out.
So, this is something to get used to: history isn't always linear.
Sincerely,
Lars
--
SUSE Labs, Research and Development
SUSE LINUX Products GmbH - A Novell Business -- Charles Darwin
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge."
_______________________________________________________
Linux-HA-Dev: [email protected]
http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha-dev
Home Page: http://linux-ha.org/
