Mailing-List: contact users-help@subversion.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: local policy)
From: Andrew Reedick <Andrew.Reedick@cbeyond.net>
To: Gavin Baumanis <gbaumanis@cogstate.com>, "users@subversion.apache.org"
	<users@subversion.apache.org>
Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2013 16:08:20 -0400
Subject: RE: Merging change sets for a production release,
Thread-Topic: Merging change sets for a production release,
Thread-Index: Ac5gExoWR4AkGROWTcSOSX0ONg5tYAATrM0gAAldtlAAAzv/kA==
Message-ID: 
 <1B05D8F50421E24799AE93B03CC284BE01C33232E3@CRPMBX01.corp.cbeyond.net>
References: 
 <2352DCD1BC9BB24D9D0F8B20ABCA774A84CBA1E3@MBX021-E3-NJ-6.exch021.domain.local>
 <1B05D8F50421E24799AE93B03CC284BE01C28D983B@CRPMBX01.corp.cbeyond.net>
 <2352DCD1BC9BB24D9D0F8B20ABCA774A84CBC6AE@MBX021-E3-NJ-6.exch021.domain.local>
In-Reply-To: 
 <2352DCD1BC9BB24D9D0F8B20ABCA774A84CBC6AE@MBX021-E3-NJ-6.exch021.domain.local>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gavin Baumanis [mailto:gbaumanis@cogstate.com]
> Sent: Monday, June 03, 2013 2:27 PM
> To: Andrew Reedick; users@subversion.apache.org
> Subject: RE: Merging change sets for a production release,
>=20
> Hi Andrew,
> Thanks for your response.
>=20
> I do everything but for the chaining of the revisions to merge in the
> same command.
> I tried it once (granted a long time ago) and it caused such an issue
> for me  that after about 6 hours of swearing, I finally gave up and
> reverted the changes and did the merges one by one.
> At the time one by one allowed for individual merge conflicts - which
> made life a little easier.
>=20
> As for the other ideas, we do already only merge changes from trunk
> that are complete and have been given the appropriate release
> milestone.
> Our release process is already issue-based.
>=20
> Perhaps simply chaining the merge revisions is the answer?
>=20

Yes, I would try the 'svn merge -c ...' "changed" merge again.

Assuming you're using SVN 1.7, "chained" merges should be much easier.  It =
is still an iterative process, in that if a merge conflict is encountered, =
svn will prompt you for what to do, then you fix the code, resolve the conf=
lict, and re-run the merge command to pick up where it left off.  You will =
probably want to use 'svn merge --accept postpone ...' to avoid the prompti=
ng.  It's normally a good idea to save off your merge command so you can ad=
d it to the commit comment (or in case anything happens to your command lin=
e's history buffer.)