Re: merge issue

[Larry Jones]

Schwenk, Jeanie writes:
> 
> I received this from one of our engineers here (I added a few details for
> clarity).  I think the merge behaved this way because of the order of the
> tags.  Is that correct?

Yes and no.

> So I tried something different.  I checked in my current, beautified
> version, so that my version and the branch were both beautified and both
> committed.  Then I did this:
> 
> cvs update -j HEAD -j systema_v1_2 EQC_RobotArm.java
> 
> The results of this were bizarre.  These files were merged.  Where there
> were conflicts, the contents of systema_v1_2 were taken only.  No conflict
> file was created.  ViewCVS's diff clearly showed the conflicts ... I know
> they are there.

That's not bizzarre, that's exactly what [s]he asked for.  That
particular update command says, "Please take all of the changes between
version HEAD and version systema_v1_2 and apply them to the current
version in my working directory".  Since the current version *was* HEAD,
there aren't any local changes that need to be merged and thus no chance
of conflicts; it effectively replaces the current version in toto with
version systema_v1_2.

The original update with just one -j option is the correct way to merge.
I would presume that the extended conflicts are due to subtle
differences in the "beautification", which is why doing such things is
generally inadvisable when branches are, or may be, involved.

-Larry Jones

Talk about someone easy to exploit! -- Calvin