On 11/18/2010 4:41 PM, Gary van der Merwe wrote:
> On 18/11/2010 22:50, GuilhemBichot wrote:
>> I am using the latest lp:bzr, which has the fix above. I am
>> re-running the same commands as when I filed the bug report, with the
>> same revisions. I observe that indeed now, "bzr merge ../mm" does not
>> produce an error anymore. However, it ends with 453 conflicts.
>
> I did try this merge to test my patch. I ran it the same problem, and
> investigated why. The mm branch allready has storage/innobase, which is
> added by the jp branch, and unfortunatly has different file ids.
then why does it work when specifying the base explicitly?
John
=:->
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Cygwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 11/18/2010 4:41 PM, Gary van der Merwe wrote:
> On 18/11/2010 22:50, GuilhemBichot wrote:
>> I am using the latest lp:bzr, which has the fix above. I am
>> re-running the same commands as when I filed the bug report, with the
>> same revisions. I observe that indeed now, "bzr merge ../mm" does not
>> produce an error anymore. However, it ends with 453 conflicts.
>
> I did try this merge to test my patch. I ran it the same problem, and
> investigated why. The mm branch allready has storage/innobase, which is
> added by the jp branch, and unfortunatly has different file ids.
then why does it work when specifying the base explicitly?
John
=:->
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- enigmail. mozdev. org/
mpXcACgkQJdeBCY SNAAOi+ gCggfaw+ pRqz3JpIMUUu6iS sIno qu8Yc/PA/ CSmodhG+
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Cygwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://
iEYEARECAAYFAkz
UigAn38FmAhj68P
=nVgY
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----