Daniel Clark wrote: > On 2/28/07, Raman Gupta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Daniel Clark wrote: >> Note, though various people have had success with it, this patch has >> not been committed, and unfortunately the committers seem reticent to >> do so (or even to respond to my post)... >> >> http://tinyurl.com/39h6x5 > > I wasn't able to follow that discussion, but I'll just say that I > think this is a very common use case and should be fixed somehow, or > at least have a FAQ entry with a workaround - I started off an entry > [1] which could use some TLC from people more familiar with the issue. > > BTW is using "svn resolved ." instead of this patch a bad idea? > > [1] http://www.orcaware.com/svn/wiki/Svnmerge.py#FAQ
Thanks. I think using "svn resolved ." might be a bad idea in certain cases -- IIRC the patch explicitly sets the integrated property to the value it should be as opposed to just reverting it. On second reading of your message I'm actually not sure if your issue will be resolved with this patch or not... if you have a few minutes could you send us a repro recipe for the problem you encountered? If you could try it with and without the patch that would be great too. Cheers, Raman _______________________________________________ Svnmerge mailing list [email protected] http://www.orcaware.com/mailman/listinfo/svnmerge
