Merging changes sounds simple enough, but in practice it can become a headache. The problem is that if you repeatedly merge changes from one branch to another, you might accidentally merge the same change twice. When this happens, sometimes things will work fine. When patching a file, Subversion typically notices if the file already has the change, and does nothing. But if the already-existing change has been modified in any way, you'll get a conflict.

Ideally, your version control system should prevent the double-application of changes to a branch. It should automatically remember which changes a branch has already received, and be able to list them for you. It should use this information to help automate merges as much as possible.

Unfortunately, Subversion is not such a system; it does not yet record any information about merge operations. ^[22] When you commit local modifications, the repository has no idea whether those changes came from running svn merge, or from just hand-editing the files.

What does this mean to you, the userЁ  It means that until the day Subversion grows this feature, you'll have to track merge information yourself. The best place to do this is in the commit log-message. As demonstrated in prior examples, it's recommended that your log-message mention a specific revision number (or range of revisions) that are being merged into your branch. Later on, you can run svn log to review which changes your branch already contains. This will allow you to carefully construct a subsequent svn merge command that won't be redundant with previously ported changes.

In the next section, we'll show some examples of this technique in action.

First, always remember to do your merge into a working copy that has no local edits and has been recently updated. If your working copy isn't в€œcleanв€� in these ways, you can run into some headaches.

Assuming your working copy is tidy, merging isn't a particularly high-risk operation. If you get the merge wrong the first time, simply svn revert the changes and try again.

If you've merged into a working copy that already has local modifications, the changes applied by a merge will be mixed with your pre-existing ones, and running svn revert is no longer an option. The two sets of changes may be impossible to separate.

In cases like this, people take comfort in being able to predict or examine merges before they happen. One simple way to do that is to run svn diff with the same arguments you plan to pass to svn merge, as we already showed in our first example of merging. Another method of previewing is to pass the --dry-run option to the merge command:

$ svn merge --dry-run -c 344 http://svn.example.com/repos/calc/trunk
U  integer.c

$ svn status
#  nothing printed, working copy is still unchanged.

The --dry-run option doesn't actually apply any local changes to the working copy. It only shows status codes that would be printed in a real merge. It's useful for getting a в€œhigh levelв€� preview of the potential merge, for those times when running svn diff gives too much detail.

Just like the svn update command, svn merge applies changes to your working copy. And therefore it's also capable of creating conflicts. The conflicts produced by svn merge, however, are sometimes different, and this section explains those differences.

To begin with, assume that your working copy has no local edits. When you svn update to a particular revision, the changes sent by the server will always apply в€œcleanlyв€� to your working copy. The server produces the delta by comparing two trees: a virtual snapshot of your working copy, and the revision tree you're interested in. Because the left-hand side of the comparison is exactly equal to what you already have, the delta is guaranteed to correctly convert your working copy into the right-hand tree.

But svn merge has no such guarantees and can be much more chaotic: the user can ask the server to compare any two trees at all, even ones that are unrelated to the working copy! This means there's large potential for human error. Users will sometimes compare the wrong two trees, creating a delta that doesn't apply cleanly. svn merge will do its best to apply as much of the delta as possible, but some parts may be impossible. Just as the Unix patch command sometimes complains about в€œfailed hunksв€�, svn merge will complain about в€œskipped targetsв€�:

$ svn merge -r 1288:1351 http://svn.example.com/repos/branch
U  foo.c
U  bar.c
Skipped missing target: 'baz.c'
U  glub.c
C  glorb.h

$

In the previous example it might be the case that baz.c exists in both snapshots of the branch being compared, and the resulting delta wants to change the file's contents, but the file doesn't exist in the working copy. Whatever the case, the в€œskippedв€� message means that the user is most likely comparing the wrong two trees; they're the classic sign of user error. When this happens, it's easy to recursively revert all the changes created by the merge (svn revert --recursive), delete any unversioned files or directories left behind after the revert, and re-run svn merge with different arguments.

Also notice that the previous example shows a conflict happening on glorb.h. We already stated that the working copy has no local edits: how can a conflict possibly happenЁ  Again, because the user can use svn merge to define and apply any old delta to the working copy, that delta may contain textual changes that don't cleanly apply to a working file, even if the file has no local modifications.

Another small difference between svn update and svn merge are the names of the full-text files created when a conflict happens. In the section called в€œResolve Conflicts (Merging Others' Changes)в€�, we saw that an update produces files named filename.mine, filename.rOLDREV, and filename.rNEWREV. When svn merge produces a conflict, though, it creates three files named filename.working, filename.left, and filename.right. In this case, the terms в€œleftв€� and в€œrightв€� are describing which side of the double-tree comparison the file came from. In any case, these differing names will help you distinguish between conflicts that happened as a result of an update versus ones that happened as a result of a merge.

When conversing with a Subversion developer, you might very likely hear reference to the term ancestry. This word is used to describe the relationship between two objects in a repository: if they're related to each other, then one object is said to be an ancestor of the other.

For example, suppose you commit revision 100, which includes a change to a file foo.c. Then foo.c@99 is an в€œancestorв€� of foo.c@100. On the other hand, suppose you commit the deletion of foo.c in revision 101, and then add a new file by the same name in revision 102. In this case, foo.c@99 and foo.c@102 may appear to be related (they have the same path), but in fact are completely different objects in the repository. They share no history or в€œancestryв€�.

The reason for bringing this up is to point out an important difference between svn diff and svn merge. The former command ignores ancestry, while the latter command is quite sensitive to it. For example, if you asked svn diff to compare revisions 99 and 102 of foo.c, you would see line-based diffs; the diff command is blindly comparing two paths. But if you asked svn merge to compare the same two objects, it would notice that they're unrelated and first attempt to delete the old file, then add the new file; the output would indicate a deletion followed by an add:

D  foo.c
A  foo.c

Most merges involve comparing trees that are ancestrally related to one another, and therefore svn merge defaults to this behavior. Occasionally, however, you may want the merge command to compare two unrelated trees. For example, you may have imported two source-code trees representing different vendor releases of a software project (see the section called в€œVendor branchesв€�). If you asked svn merge to compare the two trees, you'd see the entire first tree being deleted, followed by an add of the entire second tree! In these situations, you'll want svn merge to do a path-based comparison only, ignoring any relations between files and directories. Add the --ignore-ancestry option to your merge command, and it will behave just like svn diff. (And conversely, the --notice-ancestry option will cause svn diff to behave like the merge command.)

A common desire is to refactor source code, especially in Java-based software projects. Files and directories are shuffled around and renamed, often causing great disruption to everyone working on the project. Sounds like a perfect case to use a branch, doesn't itЁ  Just create a branch, shuffle things around, then merge the branch back to the trunk, rightЁ

Alas, this scenario doesn't work so well right now, and is considered one of Subversion's current weak spots. The problem is that Subversion's update command isn't as robust as it should be, particularly when dealing with copy and move operations.

When you use svn copy to duplicate a file, the repository remembers where the new file came from, but it fails to transmit that information to the client which is running svn update or svn merge. Instead of telling the client, в€œCopy that file you already have to this new locationв€�, it instead sends down an entirely new file. This can lead to problems, especially because the same thing happens with renamed files. A lesser-known fact about Subversion is that it lacks в€œtrue renamesв€�в€”the svn move command is nothing more than an aggregation of svn copy and svn delete.

For example, suppose that while working on your private branch, you rename integer.c to whole.c. Effectively you've created a new file in your branch that is a copy of the original file, and deleted the original file. Meanwhile, back on trunk, Sally has committed some improvements to integer.c. Now you decide to merge your branch to the trunk:

$ cd calc/trunk

$ svn merge -r 341:405 http://svn.example.com/repos/calc/branches/my-calc-branch
D   integer.c
A   whole.c

This doesn't look so bad at first glance, but it's also probably not what you or Sally expected. The merge operation has deleted the latest version of integer.c file (the one containing Sally's latest changes), and blindly added your new whole.c fileв€”which is a duplicate of the older version of integer.c. The net effect is that merging your в€œrenameв€� to the branch has removed Sally's recent changes from the latest revision!

This isn't true data-loss; Sally's changes are still in the repository's history, but it may not be immediately obvious that this has happened. The moral of this story is that until Subversion improves, be very careful about merging copies and renames from one branch to another.