[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Utter confusion
From: |
ai26 |
Subject: |
Re: Utter confusion |
Date: |
Thu, 09 Dec 2004 00:04:38 +0100 |
In a message of Wed, 08 Dec 2004 14:42:58 -0800
Received on Wed, 08 Dec 2004 23:43:31 +0100
Mark D. Baushke <address@hidden> wrote
to: Michael Lemke <address@hidden>
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>> >>
>> >> You could reverse the arguments of the merge operation as an
>> >> alternative...
>> >
>> >Well, that's an idea, why didn't I think of it... But still no
>> >luck:
>> >
>> >$ cvs up -j DEVP_4 -j QP_LAST_WORKING_VERSION PATCH002.htm
>> >R PATCH002.htm
>> >cvs update: file PATCH002.htm exists, but has been added in revision
>> >QP_LAST_WORKING_VERSION
>> >
>> >and it's still not there.
>> >
>>
>>
>> What does it mean?
>
>Merges happen in a checked out tree using a three-way merge. If your
>tree is 'missing' the baseline version from your tree,
Hm, this gets interesting. I got similar messages when I did the
initial merge. So the `missing baseline version' is the one in the
sandbox, right? And `missing' means locally removed?
>then cvs assumes
>this was your intent and supresses doing the inverse of the merge.
Does this only affect the inverse? I'd guess not but I better ask.
>So,
>in this case, you will need to 'cvs add' the files back into your
>sandbox before you can completely restore things to the way they were
>before you did the botched merge operation.
Ok, I'll try this tomorrow.
Thanks again,
Michael