Subversion: How to merge only specific revisions into trunk when multiple consecutive changes are made in a branch?

Question

I have been using TortoiseSVN, svn, and subclipse and I think I understand the basics, but there's one thing that's been bugging me for a while: Merging introduces unwanted code. Here's the steps.

trunk/test.txt@r2. A test file was created with 'A' and a return:

A
[EOF]

branches/TRY-XX-Foo/test.txt@r3. Branched out the trunk to TRY-XX-Foo:

A
[EOF]

branches/TRY-XX-Foo/test.txt@r4. Made an unwanted change in TRY-XX-Foo and committed it:

A
B (unwanted change)
[EOF]

branches/TRY-XX-Foo/test.txt@r5. Made an important bug fix in TRY-XX-Foo and committed it:

A
B (unwanted change)
C (important bug fix)
[EOF]

Now, I would like to merge only the important bug fix back to trunk. So, I run merge for revision 4:5. What I end up in my working directory is a conflict.

trunk/test.txt:

A
<<<<<<< .working
=======
B (unwanted change)
C (important bug fix)
>>>>>>> .merge-right.r5
[EOF]

Against my will, Subversion has now included "unwanted change" into the trunk code, and I need to weed them out manually. Is there a way to merge only specified revisions when multiple consecutive changes are made in the branch?

The part of the problem is that B (unwated change) is included in .merge-right and I can't tell the difference between which revision it came from. I usually use TortoiseMerge and here's how it looks.

Solution 1

The problem is that both svn

A
<<<<<<< .working
=======
B (unwanted change)
C (important bug fix)
>>>>>>> .merge-right.r341

and TortoiseSVN is treating the situation as 2-way merge. I've heard of the term 3-way merge, so I gave Beyond Compare a shot. With quick set up with TortoiseSVN, Edit Conflict now bring up the following screen. This is not perfect, since it's still requiring human intervention, but at least I can tell which changes are coming from where.

See screenshot.

Solution 2

Merging only revisions 4,7, and 11-15 with svnmerge:

svnmerge.py merge -r4,7,11-15

And with regular svn:

svn merge -c4,7 -r10:15 http://.../branches/TRY-XX-Foo

Solution 3

Well to clarify a thing about merge is that it actually has 2 steps.

1. Merge
2. Commit

So that means that after your merge is done, you can do a manual diff against head and the other branch to make sure that the merge was correct. And if something was wrong with it, like in your case, you can manually fix it before the commit.

/Johan

Solution 4

In TortoiseSVN, you must only specify the revisions you want to merge. Unlike the command line client where you have to specify e.g. -r4:5 to merge the changes between r4 and r5, you only have to specify '5' as the revision number to merge in the TortoiseSVN merge dialog. If you're not sure, always use log dialog from the merge dialog and select the revisions you want to merge in that log dialog (then click OK and the selected revisions will automatically get set in the merge dialog).

As for resolving your conflict in TortoiseMerge: According to the screenshot in your question, TortoiseMerge shows you two conflicted lines (the ones shown as '????' in the bottom view). What you want is to include the change 'C' but not 'B'?

• left click on the first '???' line to select it, then right-click, choose 'use block from "mine"' from the context menu
• left click on the second '???' line to select it, then right-click, choose 'use block from "theirs"' from the context menu
• Click the save button (or File->Save)
• Optionally click on the "Mark as resolved" button

Solution 5

I believe you are including the revisions you want correctly, but the merge algorithm is failing to find the place to insert the wanted change and so including the line above it also. Here are the same steps but with a different set of changes, and I believe it works as you expected originally:

$ svnadmin create repo
$ svn mkdir -m '' file://`pwd`/repo/trunk

Committed revision 1.
$ svn mkdir -m '' file://`pwd`/repo/branches

Committed revision 2.
$ svn co file://`pwd`/repo/trunk co.trunk
Checked out revision 2.
$ cat > co.trunk/test.txt << EOF
> A
> B
> C
> EOF
$ svn add co.trunk/test.txt
A         co.trunk/test.txt
$ svn commit -m '' co.trunk
Adding         co.trunk/test.txt
Transmitting file data .
Committed revision 3.
$ svn copy -m '' file://`pwd`/repo/trunk file://`pwd`/repo/branches/testbr

Committed revision 4.
$ svn co file://`pwd`/repo/branches/testbr co.testbr
A    co.testbr/test.txt
Checked out revision 4.
$ cat > co.testbr/test.txt << EOF
> A
> A1 unwanted
> B
> C
> EOF
$ svn commit -m '' co.testbr
Sending        co.testbr/test.txt
Transmitting file data .
Committed revision 5.
$ cat > co.testbr/test.txt << EOF
> A
> A1 unwanted
> B
> B1 wanted
> C
> EOF
$ svn commit -m '' co.testbr
Sending        co.testbr/test.txt
Transmitting file data .
Committed revision 6.
$ svn merge -r 5:6 file://`pwd`/repo/branches/testbr co.trunk
--- Merging r6 into 'co.trunk':
U    co.trunk/test.txt
$ cat co.trunk/test.txt
A
B
B1 wanted
C

View more solutions

Comments

[Eugene Yokota]

Running from command line still produced the same result as TortoiseSVN, causing conflict and pulling in unwanted changes.

[Eugene Yokota]

4:5 means take the difference between 4 and 5 and apply it to the working directory. I've tried -c5 command line option, but the result is the same.

[orip]

Sorry, I guess I don't understand your scenario. Cherry-picking revisions to merge works just like I show (and evidently, like you tried), I'm not sure what's the problem.

[boutta]

Orips answer should be right and give you the result you want. Maybe you didn't leave revision 5 out in your command-line statement. Then obviously you would pull the change into the merge.

[Ranger]

Using the subclipse merge view you can enable the original view which will get you the three way merge view. Check the top right corner.

[Eugene Yokota]

Undoing is not an option since the unwanted changes in branches/TRY-XX-Foo/ represent half-baked features, not ready to get merged into trunk.

[boutta]

@eed3si9n: I had a already formed branch, added a (unwanted) change to a file, then added a wanted change to the same file and did an svn merge -c$revision URL into the trunk of the project. Here $revision was the revision number of the wanted change. After the merge I got only the wanted change.

[boutta]

I did everything on the command line only with a -c option because for the test I only added 2 further revisions as in your example.

[guerda]

Please put this information in your question, because this is an answer.

[Eugene Yokota]

@guerda, I am posting the use of 3-way merge tool as an answer.

[Eugene Yokota]

First of all, thank you for the great tool. I've been keeping up with TortoiseSVN updates, so I know that you need to specify 5, instead of 4-5.

[Eugene Yokota]

In this simplified example, it's easy to tell the "unwanted" part, but Subversion shouldn't have brought any changes from r4. In reality, it's hard to tell which part came from the unwanted revision that I did not specify. I frequently merge branch changes written by others.

[Stefan]

Well, Subversion didn't actually merge r4. The problem you're seeing here is that Subversion encountered a conflict, and to indicate that conflict it not only marks the conflicting lines but also 1 line around the conflicting lines (i.e., context lines). If you had a line D, that line would also

[Eugene Yokota]

Lack of context is certainly is the key, thus "multiple consecutive changes".

[Stefan]

be included in the conflict. So actually, it still is easy to spot those 'unwanted' lines. Also, it you had more context lines (this example has almost no context lines, almost all lines are include din the merge), Subversion would be much more accurate with the merge.

[gcb]

technically, you are just changing how you present your data. the text above is already a 3-way merge. just in a 1-D presentation. the regular merge is a 2-D presentation. you have to choose one of the files as the output, and add/remove changes while comparing to the other... 3-way merge is just a way to preserve the two file diff, while changing a third file. so, technically, you could solve your problem even with the 1-D diff on the text above (the one with <<<< and ==== )