SVN 1.4 合并，修订未出现在日志中
我使用的是 SVN 1.4.2，我在版本 R 上分支，合并到 R-HEAD 的版本中，现在当我查看分支上的日志时，我只看到 R 之前的版本，R 和 HEAD 之间没有版本。是否可以得到这些信息？
我使用的是 TortoiseSVN 1.6，它基于 SVNClient 1.6.12。我没有选中“仅记录合并（阻止合并修订）”框。我尝试了“Inlcude merged revisions”，但这显然运行了一个直到 SVN 1.5 才支持的 mergeinfo。
I'm using SVN 1.4.2 and I branched at revision R, merged in the revisions from R-HEAD, and now when I look at the log on the branch, I only see revisions up to R, none between R and HEAD. Is it possible to get this information?
I am using TortoiseSVN 1.6, which is based on SVNClient 1.6.12. I did not have the "Only record the merge (block revisions from getting merged)" box checked. I tried "Inlcude merged revisions", but that apparently runs a mergeinfo which isn't supported until SVN 1.5.
如果你对这篇内容有疑问，欢迎到本站社区发帖提问 参与讨论，获取更多帮助，或者扫码二维码加入 Web 技术交流群。
绑定邮箱获取回复消息
由于您还没有绑定你的真实邮箱，如果其他用户或者作者回复了您的评论，将不能在第一时间通知您！
发布评论
评论（2）
SVN 1.4 没有合并跟踪。因此，它无法知道合并到分支的来源。如果它不知道合并来自哪里，它就无法知道从哪里获取该合并的日志消息。
唯一真正的解决方案是将您的服务器升级到 1.5 或更高版本。
如果您希望显示以前分支的日志，则需要重新创建分支并重新提交修订。
SVN 1.4 doesn't have merge tracking. Therefore, it has no way of knowing the source of a merged into a branch. If it doesn't know where a merge came from, it can't know where to get the log messages for that merge.
The only real solution is to upgrade your server to 1.5 or higher.
If you want logs from previous branches to appear, you'll need to recreate the branch and recommit the revisions.
看来这确实是一个功能。
分支应该是快速分支，可以在不搞乱主干的情况下构建一些功能。整个合并在一起应该只包含主干的一个真正的更改。对于主干开发来说，这些小的增量步骤并不重要。
在我们的例子中，一个分支的创建和开发已经超过一年了。理想情况下，我们有历史可以查看，但我们的分支方法违反了“正确”的做事方式，因此我们将失去历史。有很多方法可以解决这个问题，但在我们的例子中，用另一种黑客来修复一个黑客比丢失一些历史记录并吸取教训更糟糕。
如果有人有办法一起解决这个问题，请分享！
谢谢
It would appear that this is actually a feature.
Branches are supposed to be quick offshoots to build up some functionality without mucking up trunk. The whole merge, together, should only comprise one real change of trunk. The little incremental steps aren't supposed to be significant with regards to the trunk development.
In our case, a branch was made and developed for over a year. Ideally we'd have the history to look over, but our branching methodology violated the "correct" way to do things, and we will consequently lose history. There ARE ways to hack around this, but in our case fixing one hack with another hack is worse than losing some history and learning our lesson.
If anyone has a way to hack this together, please do share!
Thanks