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 | ncogh...@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia --------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
