[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Monotone-devel] resolving name conflicts; file suturing vs drop

From: Stephen Leake
Subject: Re: [Monotone-devel] resolving name conflicts; file suturing vs drop
Date: Mon, 05 May 2008 06:57:54 -0400
User-agent: Gnus/5.1008 (Gnus v5.10.8) Emacs/22.1 (windows-nt)

Ludovic Brenta <address@hidden> writes:

> I have a database where I replicate, via tailor, a Subversion repository in a
> "vendor" branch. In the same database I have my development branch where I do
> all my work. Occasionally, I add a file in my development branch. In order to
> propagate changes to the upstream Subversion repo, I apply patches and commit
> manually in Subversion, e.g.
> $ mtn diff -r h:vendor -r h:development > /tmp/f.diff
> $ svn checkout svm+ssh://
> $ cd trunk
> $ patch -p0 < /tmp/f.diff
> $ svn add foo
> $ svn commit -m "merge from development branch"

I gather that tailor only provides a one-way link between the svn and
mtn repositories? Otherwise you could use tailor to push the new file
to svn.

> The problem takes place when tailor next updates the vendor branch in the
> monotone database. At that point, the file "foo" appears to have been created
> independently in both branches, so I get non-content conflicts. The way I
> resolve them is clunky:
> $ cd ~src/tailor/vendor # this is the monotone checkout that tailor maintains
> $ mtn rm foo
> $ mtn propagate development vendor
> $ mtn update

Right. I'm looking for a better way to solve this.

I've proposed a rather elaborate method using the output of 'automate
show_conflicts', editing the resulting file, and commiting with 'merge
--resolve_conflicts'. For the case where there is only one conflict,
or all the conflicts can be resolved in the same way, we could have a

'merge --resolve_conflict="resolve_content_ws"'

Hmm. I guess in your case, since you are doing 'propagate', that would
really have to be:

'propagate development vendor --resolve_conflict="resolve_content_ws"'

Although then "ws" is ambiguous; it could be either development or
vendor. Sigh.

So maybe some variant of 'explicit_merge'.

> In essence I'm mucking around behind tailor's back. 

Yes. So the other solution is to make tailor provide a two-way link
between svn and mtn.

-- Stephe

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]